Nazul - Bar Association Allahabad

1
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
Allhabad High Court,
Allahabad.
Subject: Grant of consent to the offer of District Magistrate in regard to Nazul
Plot No.141 Civil Station, Allahabad situated just infront of High
Court Gate No.-3.
Hon'ble His Lordship,
On behalf of thousand of lawyers of this Hon'ble High Court, I am
writing this letter to his lordship with this hope & trust that dream of the
lawyers of having their own Chamber in the premises of Hon'ble High Court
may come true in your lordships tenure as Chief Justice.
During the last years work in the High Court has increased manifold
particularly numbers of lawyers practicing in this High Court. The vehicles
have also increased to a great extent and have becom, now, a security
problem. The cars are being parked infront of High Court on roads which
have also resulted in Traffic congestion, that too, before the temple of justice.
Since the number of lawyers is increasing day by day and all of them
do not have their Chambers to attend to their professional needs, during
Court hours, they sit in open space, Gallery, Varandah and some time on the
roads. For them the Hon'ble High Court require proper place for construction
of Chambers befitting to their status, so that they may attend to their
professional duties during Court hours. This is also necessary for the smooth
Administration of Justice.

In the aforesaid circumstances the Hon'ble High Court has been
requesting the District Administration to provide suitable land, so that
Chambers may be constructed on the same without affecting the beauty of
this Heritage Building of Hon'ble High Court.
Pursuant to the aforesaid requirement, the State has already offered
the Nazul Plot No.141, Civil Station, Allahabad which is situated just infront of
High Court and is the best suited for the purpose. This land has been offered
by the State Government firstly in the year 2004 and latest in the year 2010,
free of cost but till date the Hon'ble High Court Administration has not taken
any decision on the issue.
I, on behalf of lawyers of this Hon'ble Court, must confess at this stage
that even the High Court Bar Association has not raised this issue ever
before. But in the present circumstances we are suffering on account of non
availability of sufficient space and day by day this suffering has increased
manifold.
At this stage I must invite your lordships attention that earlier by the
letter dated 12.07.2004 being letter No.2040/R(P) and by letter dated
18.11.2004 being D.O. No.3269/JR(P) the then Registrar Mr. O.N.
Khandelwal has demanded this land for the purpose of construction of
Chambers and parking. But at the later stage the matter was diverted and this
particular land was demanded for construction of residential accommodation
for the Hon'ble Judges. The proposal for the residential accommodation for
Hon'ble Judges is now centered on some other land but the problem of

Chambers and parking space is still unsolved. Since the land is being
offered free of cost, the same may be accepted by the Hon'ble High
Court and may be used for the parking space as well as space for
Chambers.
For the purpose of bringing the facts on record I am also placing on
record, a brief summary of facts pertaining to the land, as enclosure of this
letter.
I have great faith in your lordships' Administration and have trust that
your lordship may take a decision by saying 'YES' to the offer of the State
Government providing this land free of cost and may further take a decision to
use this land for the purpose of parking and construction of new Chambers
building.
I shall be highly obliged.
Enclosure: As above.
Yours
(ANIL TIWARI)

BRIEF FACTS ABOUT THE LAND
BEING PLOT NO.141, CIVIL STATION, ALLAHABAD.

:BRIEF FACTS ABOUT THE LAND:
1. Nazul Plot No.141 Civil Station, Allahabad was given on lease for 50 years to
Sri Sapurji Rustomji Gandhi (S.R. Gandhi) w.e.f. 08.06.1925.
2. The aforesaid lease expired on 07.06.1975, it has not been renewed till date
in favour of anybody.
3. Successors of late S.R. Gandhi claimed for renewal of lease. However, it was
never extended as the claim was found defective. They also applied for free
hold rights which was never granted rather rejected by the order dated
15.11.2002. Photostat copy of the order dated 15.11.2002 is enclosed as
'Enclosure No.-1'.
4. In the revenue records, plot has been entered in the name of State
Government, after the order dated 15.02.2002.
5. The successors of late S.R. Gandhi have sold the land in favour of Dr. A.K.
Bansal, Sri Surendra Kumar Garg and Sri Kailash Jaiswal by way of executing
an agreement and even handed over the possession. This agreement was
registered on 15.02.2005 before the Sub Registrar Allahabad(First) as
document No.843.
6. After this transfer the successors of late Gandhi have filed a writ petition
before this Hon'ble Court being Writ Petition No.6387 of 2008 which has been
dismissed by this Hon'ble Court by judgment dated 08.02.2010. Photostat
copy of the judgment dated 08.02.2010 is enclosed as 'Enclosure No.-2'.
7. In regard to the aforesaid land several litigations were conducted by the
parties before this Hon'ble Court. These litigations are:-

(i) W.P. No.32950 of 1994 decided by the Judgment dated 25.05.1998.
Photostat copy of the judgment dated 25.05.1998 is enclosed as
'Enclosure No.-3'.
(ii) W.P. No.20379 of 2003 decided by the Judgment dated 24.08.2005.
Photostat copy of the judgment dated 24.08.2005 is enclosed as
'Enclosure No.-4'.
(iii) Contempt Petition No.3246 of 2006 is pending in which by order dated
19.08.2006 the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was
pleased to formulate four questions and was pleased to refer the
matter to be answered by the full Bench. Photostat copy of the order
dated 19.08.2006 is enclosed as 'Enclosure No.-5'. The Hon'ble full
Bench has answered the questions by judgment dated 26.04.2007.
Photostat copy of the order dated 26.04.2007 is enclosed as
'Enclosure No.-6'.
(iv) Writ Petition No.6387 of 2008 which has been dismissed by this
Hon'ble Court by judgment dated 08.02.2010.
8. In all the litigations, they claimed their right as lessee and claim to get the land
freehold. The litigations may either be decided in favour or against the
successors of late S.R. Gandhi but in both the events the acquisition of
the plot by the Hon'ble High Court is not going to be affected because
even in case of favourable decision in their favour, they may claim only
renewal of the lease or freehold rights but the same would not take away
the power of the State Government of compulsory acquisition of the
land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. At the best the
renewal of lease or freehold rights would be taken into consideration
only for determining the quantum of compensation.

Facts about the communication between the State
Government and High Court.

Facts about the communication between the State Government and
High Court.
1. In the year 2002-03 deliberations were made between the Registrar of this
Hon'ble Court and the District Magistrate, Allahabad in regard to acquisition
of some land for the purpose of construction of official accommodation for
the Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble Court.
2. The District Magistrate, Allahabad has offered the plot in question, free of
cost to the Hon'ble Court by his letter dated 03.11.2003 being letter
No.74/Nazul-Civil Lines-XX-1-8/26 (81-82).
3. The Registrar by his letter dated 12.07.2004 directed the District Magistrate,
Allahabad to handover the possession of the aforesaid land. Photostat copy
of the order dated 12.07.2004 is enclosed as 'Enclosure No.-7'.
4. The Registrar of this Hon'ble High Court vide letter dated 18.11.2004
requested the District Magistrate, Allahabad to provide the land for the
purpose of construction of parking place and Chambers. Photostat copy of
the letter dated 18.11.2004 is enclosed as 'Enclosure No.-8'.
5. It is material to state here that for the purpose of extension of the premises
of Hon'ble High Court, Nazul Plot No.59, Civil Station, Allahabad has
already been acquired.
6. By several letters dated 05.05.2005 the District Magistrate, Allahabad has
intimated the State Government about the proposed acquisition of Nazul
Plot No.141, Civil Station, Allahabad. In this letter the District Magistrate,
Allahabad has himself observed that this is the most suitable plot for the use

of Hon'ble High Court. Photostat copy of the letters dated 05.05.2005 are
collectively enclosed as 'Enclosure No.-9'.
7. During the period commencing from year 2005 to year 2010 this acquisition
remains pending on account of various confusion created by the interested
parties. At this point of time Mr. Mahavir Yadav was the District Magistrate,
Allahabad who has communicated wrong information to the State
Government and diverted the matter to some other non-existing hypothetical
land.
8. However, later on the new District Magistrate, Allahabad in his letter dated
05.05.2005 submitted the correct information to the State Government. In
this letter he has specifically indicated that earlier the incorrect information
was given. In as much as Nazul Plot Nos.58A, 58B, 58C, 58D etc. do not
exist. Photostat copy of the letter dated 05.05.2005 is enclosed as
'Enclosure No.-10'.
9. By the Judgment dated 08.02.2010 passed in writ petition No.6387 of 2010,
the Hon'ble Court has ruled that this plot cannot be given to any other
person unless No Objection is obtained from Hon'ble High Court.
10. After this judgment in the month of February, 2010 itself the District
Magistrate, Allahabad has again offered this plot free of cost to
Hon'ble Court. Till date the Hon'ble High Court has not taken any
decision. Photostat copy of the undated letter of District Magistrate,
Allahabad is enclosed as 'Enclosure No.-11'.

11. Since this plot is being offered free of cost to the Hon'ble High Court, I found
no reason, not to accept the same because needs of extra land is being
greatly felt by this Hon'ble Court as indicated in the letter dated 18.11.2004.

The Interested Parties who are against this proposition
are taking the plea mentioned below

The Interested Parties who are against this proposition are taking the plea
mentioned below:
1. Since litigation is going on, the Plot is disputed.
This objection is misleading because the only claim of the litigating parties is either
to get the lease renewed or to get the free hold rights. In case in the litigation the
litigating party wins the case, the only issue which will arise would be with regard
to payment of compensation. This very question has been considered by the
Hon'ble Full Bench in this very controversy. The relevant portion is being quoted
herein below:-
We have not been shown any law which prohibits
compulsory acquisition of the land, under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even
after the lease had been renewed, merely because
the lease has been renewed. A renewal of the
lease in favour of the petitioners would not take
away the power of the State Government of
compulsory acquisition of the land under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In fact,
the renewal of lease would at best be taken into
consideration for determining the quantum of
compensation. The question no.2 is answered
accordingly.
2. There are other plots numbered as 58 Civil Station, Allahabad situated at
Kanpur Road which has also been offered by the District Magistrate free of
cost by the same letter.
This objection is also misconceived because plot No.141 is the better situated and
is larger than any other plot offered and further plot No.58 is divided in five parts
and at present only plot No.58 1/2 B (area 3354.50 sq. yards) is available and has
been offered free of cost. The same may also be acquired but will not be sufficient
for the purpose. Photostat copy of the letter dated 23.07.2005 written by Nagar

Ayukt, Allahabad giving the status of the land is being enclosed as Enclosure
No.-12.
ENCLOSURE NO.1
LETTER OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD
REJECTING THE APPLIATION FOR EXTENSION OF LEASE AND
FREE HOLD RIGHTS

dk;kZy; ftykf/kdkjh] bykgkcknA
%& vkns”k &%
Jh vkj0lh0 xqIrk] iz/kku lEiknd] LorU= psruk }kjk i=
fnukad 06-09-2007 izLrqr djds f”kdk;r dh x;h gS fd Hkou
la[;k 8,] gsfLVax jksM] bykgkckn] ftlesa LorU= psruk dk
dk;kZy; fdjk;s ij py jgk gS vkSj og LorU= psruk ds i{k esa
jsUV dUVªksy vf/kdkjh] bykgkckn }kjk vkoafVr gS] dks fjDr djkus
dh /kedh nh tk jgh gSA
mijksDr f”kdk;r izkIr gksus ij izdj.k dh foLr`r Nku&chu
dh x;h ,oa vfHkys[k ns[ks x;sA iz”uxr Hkou la[;k&8,] gsfLVax
jksM utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku ij fLFkr gSA iz”uxr
Hkw[k.M ij utwy lEifRr iaftdk esa Jh ,l0vkj0 xkW/kh dk uke
vafdr Fkk] ftls dkVdj ukekUrj.k djrs gq, Jh [kqljks “kkiwjth
xkW/kh dk uke vafdr fd;k x;k gSA
iz”uxr utwy Hkw[k.M ls lEcfU/kr i=koyh esa miyC/klalaxr
vfHkys[kksa dk HkyhHkkWafr ifj”khyu fd;k x;k] rks fuEufyf[kr rF;
izdk”k esa vk;s%&

1& mDr Jh [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh dh ,d viathd`r olh;r
fnukad 16-08-1969 dks Jherh nhuk [kq”kjks xkW/kh ds i{k esa gS
rFkk Jherh nhuk [kq”kjks xkW/kh dh nwljh viathd`r olh;r
fnukad 31-08-1971 tks Jh :Lre [kq”kjks xkW/kh] Jh tgkWxhj
/kqUth “kk xkW/kh rFkk Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ds i{k esa gS]
i=koyh esa miyC/k gSA
2& mDr Jh :Lre [kq”kjks xkW/kh dh ,d viathd`r ikoj vkQ
,Vkuhz fnukafdr 18-04-1978 Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh }kjk
fu’ikfnr rhu viathd`r ikoj vkq ,Vkfu;kW adze”k% fnukafdr
29-08-1977] fnukafdr 02-06-1992 rFkk fnukafdr 28-12-1994
vkSj blh izdkj Jh ukjheu /kqUth xkW/kh }kjk Hkh fu’ikfnr rhu
viathd`r ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;kW adze”k% 29-08-1977] fnukafdr
02-06-1992 rFkk fnukafdr 20-12-1994 i=koyh esa miyC/k gSaA
3& iz”uxr utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku dh LFkyh;
tkWp vk[;k fnukad 13-04-1994 losZ ekufp= lfgr tks
rRdkyhu eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh uxj fuxe] bykgkckn }kjk
miyC/k djkbZ xbZ gS vkSj blds vfrfjDr ,d vU; vk[;k
fnukad 09-05-1994 Hkh tks izHkkjh vf/kdkjh AutwyA uxj
fuxe] bykgkckn dh i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA bu nksuksa i=ksa

ds vUrxZr iV~Vs dh “krksZa dk mYya?ku gksus ds dkj.k iz”uxr
iV~Vk fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq laLrqfr dh xbZ gSA
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li’V gS fd iz”uxr Hkw[k.M
dk iV~Vk izkIr djus ds fy;s Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk loZ izFke
vius izkFkZuki= fnukad 29-06-1981 ds ek/;e ls vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA
bl izkFkZuki= ij fnukad 04-07-1981 dks vkns”k ikfjr gqvk fd i{k
ls LoRo dk vk/kkj fnukad 21-07-1982 rd izLrqr djk;k tk; bl
vkns”k ds dze esa i= fnukad 07-07-1981 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks
Hkstdj muls muds mDr i= fnukad 29-06-1981 esa izLrqr fd;s x;s
nkos dk vk/kkj ,oa okafNr dkxtkr fnukad 21-07-1981 rd izLrqr
djus dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA ijUrq mDr Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk
LoRo dk vk/kkj izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA cfYd Jh vt; dqekj
cuthZ ds ek/;e ls ,d i= fnukad 04-06-1986 ,oa rRi”pkr ,d
nwljk i= fnukad 20-02-1987 izLrqr djk;k x;kA mDr Jh cuthZ
,MoksdsV }kjk mijksDr nksuksa i=ksa esa vius DykbUV ds iV~Vs dk
uohuhdj.k djus dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA bl dk;kZy; ls nks i=
dze”k% fnukad 26-05-1987 rFkk fnukad 03-07-1987 mDr Jh vt;
dqekj cuthZ ,MoksdsV dks bl vk”k; ls Hkstk x;k fd os vius
DykbUV ds gLrk{kj ls iV~Vk izkIr djus gsrq izkFkZuki= izLrqr
djk;saA rRi”pkr iqu% Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk viuk izkFkZuki=
fnukad 10-08-1987 rFkk 21-12-1989 izLrqr djds iV~Vk izkIr djus

dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k] ijUrq LoRo ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh lk{; u
rks Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk izLrqr fd;kx;k vkSj u gh muds
,MoksdsV Jh vt; dqekj cuthZ }kjk gh LoRo ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ
lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k ,slh fLFkfr esa dk;kZy; ls i= fnukad 16-
01-1990 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks Hkstdj muls vis{kk dh x;h fd os
iV~Vsnkjksa dk e`R;q izek.ki=] olh;rukek ,oa ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ vkfn
izLrqr djsaA bUgha vfHkys[kksa dh ekax izHkkjh vf/kdkjh AutwyA uxj
egkikfydk] bykgkckn }kjk Hkh muds i= fnukad 02-02-1990 ds
ek/;e ls djrs gq,] izksosV djk;k gqvk olh;rukek izLrqr djus dh
vis{kk dh x;h FkhA ijUrq Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds i= fnukad 22-02-
1990 ds ek/;e ls fcuk izkosV djk;s gq, olh;rukek fnukad 31-08-
1971 rFkk olh;rukek fnukad 16-08-1971] viathd`r ikoj vkQ
,VkuhZ fnukad 29-08-1977 rFkk ,d nwljh viathd`r ikoj vkQ
,VkuhZ Hkh fnukad 29-08-1977 Hkh ,oa rhljh Hkh viathd`r ikoj vkQ
,VkuhZ fnukad 18-04-1978] Jh [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh dk e`R;q
izek.ki= ,oa Jherh chuk [kq”kjks xkW/kh dk Hkh e`R;q izek.ki= leLr
lkrksa vfHkys[kksa dh vizekf.kr vfHkys[kksa dh Nk;k izfr;kaW izLrqr dh
x;hA
mijksDr viathd`r olh;r fnukad 16-08-1969 ds voyksdu
ls Li’V gS fd Jh [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh ftudh e`R;q fnukad 05-05-
1971 dks gks pqdh gS] }kjk viuh iRuh Jherh nhuk [kq”kjks xkW/kh dks

viuh leLr py vyp lEifRr;kW dks mRrjkf/kdkjh cuk;k x;k gSA
;g olh;rukek fnukad 16-08-1969 u rks iathd`r djk;k x;k vkSj
u gh bls izksosV gh djk;k x;k tcfd olh;rdrkZ fgUnw ugha Fks]
,slh fLFkfr esa olh;rukes dks izksosV djk;k tkuk vko”;d FkkA blh
izdkj Jherh nhuk [kq”kjks xkW/kh }kjk Hkh viuh e`R;q fnukad 06-03-
1978 ds iwoZ ,d viathd`r olh;rukek fnukad 31-08-1971
fu’ikfnr djds viuh py&vpy lEifRr dk 1@2 Hkkx vius iq=
:Lre [kq”kjks xkW/kh dks rFkk 1@4 Hkkx o 1@4 Hkkx vius nks ikS=ksa
dze”k% Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh o Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh dks
fn;k x;k gSA bl olh;rukes dks Hkh u rks iathd`r djk;k x;k gS
vkSj u izksosV gh djk;k x;k gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh
Li’V gS fd Jh [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh ds uke ls iz”uxr utwy
Hkw[k.M dk dHkh dksbZ iV~Vk gh ugha fn;k x;k FkkA tc rd mDr
Jh [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh iz”uxr “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk
vius uke ls izkIr u dj ysrs rc rd mUgsa iz”uxr olh;r fnukad
16-08-1969 fu’ikfnr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha FkkA blds vfrfjDr
pwWfd bl olh;rukek fnukad 16-08-1969 esa dgha Hkh iz”uxr
“kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls
fd ;g izrhr gks lds fd blh “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M ds fy;s
mudk mDr olh;rukek fu’ikfnr fd;k x;k gSA mDr olh;rukek
fnukad 16-08-1969 ds vk/kkj ij Jherh nhuk [kq”kjks xkW/kh dks

mrrjkf/kdkjh cukus dk mYys[k vo”; gS ijUrq Jherh nhuk [kq”kjks
xkW/kh }kjk bl olh;rukes ds vk/kkj ij iz”uxr “kkldh; utwy
Hkw[k.M ij u rks viuk uke vafdr fd;k x;k vkSj u gh mDr
“kkldh; lEifRr dk dksbZ iV~Vk gh vius uke ls izkIr fd;k x;kA
bUgksaus Hkh ,d olh;rukek fnukad 31-08-1971 fu’ikfnr djds vius
,d iq= ,oa nks ikS=ksa dks viuh py&vpy lEifRr ds fy;s
mRrjkf/kdkjh cuk;k x;kA bl olh;rukes esa Hkh iz”uxr “kkldh;
utwy Hkw[k.M dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA mijksDr ifr iRuh nksuksa esa
ls fdlh ds Hkh uke ls iz”uxr “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk
ugha fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj utwy lEifRr iaftdk esa Jherh nhuk [kq”kjks
xkW/kh dk uke rd vafdr ugha gS ,slh fLFkfr esa fcuk vius uke ls
iV~Vk izkIr fd;s gq, mDr Jh [kq”kjksa “kkiwjth xkW/kh ,oa mDr Jherh
nhuk [kq”kjks xkW/k nksuksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh mijksDr olh;rukekas dks
fu’ikfnr djus ds fy;s vf/kdkjh ugha FksA mDr nksuksa olh;rukeksa esa
ls ,d Hkh iathd`r ugha gS vkSj nksuksa esa ls ,d dk Hkh izksosV ugha
djk;k x;k gS] vr% ,sls olh;rukeksa dks fof/kd :i ls ekU;rk ugha
nh tk ldrhA bl izdkj bu nksuksa olh;rukeksa esa ls fdlh dks Hkh
iz”uxr “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M ds fy;s fof/kekU; ugha ekuk tk
ldrkA
i=koyh ij miyC/k mijksDr ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa fnukafdr
29-08-1977 ds voyksdu ls Li’V gS fd bu nksuksa ikoj vkQ

,VkfuZ;ksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds i{k esa fu’ikfnr ugha gS
vkSj fu’iknd Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh rFkk Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk
xkW/kh esa ls fdlh ds firk dk Hkh uke vafdr ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa
Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks i= Hkstdj fLFkfr Li’V djus dh vis{kk dh
x;h vkSj blds fy;s fnukad 04-01-1992 dks vuqLekdj i= Hkh Hkstk
x;kA tc Jh Mh0,l0 xkW/kh dks i=ksa ds }kjk ;g voxr djk;k
x;k fd mijksDr nksuksa ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;kW Jh /kqUth “kk [kq”kjks
xkW/kh ds i{k esa fu’ikfnr gSa] muds AJh Mh0,Q0 xkW/khA ds i{k esa
dksbZ Hkh ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS rks Jh Mh0,Q0
xkW/kh }kjk vius i= fnukad 03-04-1992 ds ek/;e ls voxr djk;k
x;k fd og vius uke ls ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ rS;kj djk jgs gSaA
dk;kZy; ds i= fnukad 27-08-1992 iqu% Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks
Hkstdj mUgsa Lej.k djk;k x;k fd vHkh rd mUgksaus dk;kZy; ds
i= fnfukad 13-12-1996 ds vUrxZr okafNr fof/k ekU; vfHkys[k
izLrqr ugha fd;s gSa rRi”pkr~ Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds ,MoksdsV Jh
uohu flUgk ds i= fnukad 16-09-1992 ds lkFk viathd`r nks ikoj
vkQ ,VkfuZ;ka fnukafdr 02-06-1992 izLrqr dh xbZ vkSj Jh Mh0,Q0
xkW/kh ds i= fnukad 21-01-1993 ds }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd
muds }kjk leLr vkSpkfjdrk;sa dj nh xbZ gS] vc mudh yht dk
uohuhdj.k dj fn;k tk;A dk;kZy; ds i= fnukad 12-05-1993 Jh
Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks Hkst dj mUgsa voxr djk;k x;k fd Jh /kqUth

“kk xkW/kh ,oa Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh }kjk fu’ikfnr nksuksa
viathd`r ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;kaW fnukafdr 02-06-1992 ds voyksdu ls
Li’V gS fd muds firk dk uke muesa Lo0 [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh
vafdr fd;k x;k gS tcfd vU; vfHkys[kksa ls mDr fu’ikndx.k ds
firk dk uke /kqUth “kk [kq”kjks xkW/kh izrhr gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
mDr Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ls ;g Li’V djkus dh vis{kk dh xbZ fd
firk ds mDr nksuksa ukeksa esa ls dkSu lk uke lR; gSA Lo0 [kq”kjks
“kkiwj thx kW/kh vFkok Jh /kqUth “kk [kq”kjks xkW/khA Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh
}kjk dk;kZy; ds mDr i= fnukad 12-05-1993 dks laKku esa u
ysdj iqu% vius i= fnukad 31-05-1993 }kjk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k fd
muds }kjk bl lUnHkZ esa ekWxh xbZ lHkh lwpuk;sa o dkxtkr Hksts
tk pqds gSa] vr% yht dk uohuhdj.k “kh?kz fd;k tk;A iqu%
dk;kZy; ls i= fnukad 24-08-1993] 31-01-1994] 15-03-1994 rFkk
i= fnukad 22-06-1994 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks Hkst dj muls vis{kk
dh xbZ fd og Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh rFkk Jh ukjheu /kqUth
“kk xkW/kh nksuksa ds firk dk lgh uke lwpfr djrs gq, rn~uqlkj
vfHkys[k Hkh izLrqr djsaA ijUrq bu i=ksa dk dksbZ mRrj u nsdj vkSj
lgh lwpuk ,oa lqlaxr vfHkys[k miyc/k u djk dj mDr Jh
Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk vius dks mDr Jh :Lre [kq”kjksa xkW/kh] Jh
tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ,oa Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh dk vius dks
,VkuhZ gksYMj crkrs gq, ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk

la[;k&32950@1994 ¼:Lre ds0,l0 xkW/kh rFkk vU; cuke LVsV
vkQ ;w0ih0 rFkk vU;½ izLrqr dh xbZ] ftlesa ek0 mPp U;k;ky;
bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 25-05-1998 ds vUrxZr ;g
funsZ”k fn;k x;k gS fd izdj.k ls lEcaf/kr rF; ih0Mh0 V.Mu
cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 1987 ,0vkbZ0vkj0&92 ls vkPNkfnr gS]
vr% fof/k ds vuqlkj ;kph ds iV~Vs dk uohuhdj.k dj fn;k tk;sA
dk;kZy; ls ,d vkSj i= fnukad 27-08-1995 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks
Hkst dj Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ,oa Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh
ds firkdk lgh uke voxr djkrs gq, vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[k rFkk
lwpuk;sa miyC/k djkus dh vis{kk dh xbZ FkhA ek0 mPp U;k;ky;
dk mDr vkns”k fnukad 25-05-1998 muds ,MoksdsV Jh vthr dqekj
ds ek/;e ls izkIr gksus ij iqu% dk;kZy; ls i= fnukad 21-06-1998
rFkk i= fnukad 04-07-1998 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks Hkstk x;k vkSj
mDr Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ds firk dk lgh uke voxr
djkus dh vis{kk djrs gq, ;g Hkh pkgk x;k fd Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh
iV~Vsnkjksa ds mijksDr dfFkr mRrjkf/kdkjhx.k ds thfor gksus ds
lEcU/k esa lk{; izLrqr djrs gq,] vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[k miyC/k
djk;s mDr i= fnukad 04-07-1998 ds ek/;e ls ;g Hkh voxr
djk;k x;k fd iz”uxr utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku ds
iV~Vs ds lEcU/k esa lk{; ,oa lwpuk,a miyC/k djkus gsrq mUgsa dlkr
i= Hksts tk pqds gSaA blh izdkj ,d vU; utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&19

flfoy LVs”ku ds iV~Vs ds lEcU/k esa mUgsa dqy vkB i= Hksts x;s gSa
vkSj ,d vU; rhljs utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&58 flfoy LVs”ku ds
iV~Vs ds lEcU/k esa mUgsa dqy pkj i= Hksts x;s gSa] fdUrq mu i=ksa esa
okafNr lwpuk;sa muds ¼Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh½ }kjk miyC/k ugha djkbZ
xbZ gSA bl i= fnukad 04-07-1998 ds fuxZr djus ds iwoZ Jh
Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds bykgkckn fuokl LFkku ij fnukad 03-07-1998 dks
dk;kZy; ds lEcfU/kr fyfid dks Hkstk x;k rks lEcfU/kr fyfid
}kjk ;g voxr djk;k x;k fd mDr Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh vius
bykgkckn fLFkr fuoklh LFkku ij miyC/k ugha feysA muds ?kj ij
jkew uke dk O;fDr feyk ftlus vius dks Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds ?kj
dk pkSdhnkj crk;k] ijUrq mlus dksbZ Mkd ;k i= ysus ls bUdkj
fd;k vkSj dgk fd Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dSUlj dk bykt djkus gsrq
cEcbZ x;s gSa mudk cEcbZ dk irk vFkok Qksu ua0 mls Ajkew
pkSdhnkjA dks ekywe ugha gSA Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dk cEcbZ dk irk
vkSj Qksu ua0 iSysl flusek ds eSustj crk ldrs gSa vkSj ;fn dksbz
i= ;k Mkd nsuk gks rks iSysl flusek ds eSustj dks gh ns nh tk;sA
nwljs fnu mDr i= fnukad 04-07-1998 dks lkFk ysdj iSysls flusek
ds eSustj ds ikl lEcfU/kr fyfid dks gh Hkstk x;k rks iSysl
flusek ds eSustj }kjk mDr i= fnukad 04-07-1998 izkIr rks dj
fy;k x;k ijUrq iSysl flusek ds eSustj us Hkh Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds
cEcbZ dk irk vkSj Qksu ua0 ds lEcU/k esa vfufHkKrk O;Dr dhA

iSysl flusek ds eSustj }kjk Hkh Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dk cEcbZ dk
dksbZ irk vFkok Qksu ua0 u crk;s tkus ij nSfud lekpkj i=
^^vej mtkyk** esa ,d foKfIr izdkf”kr djokbZ xbZ fd Hkw[k.M ls
lEcfU/kr lalaxr vfHkys[k] lgh lqpuk,a ,oa thfor mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa
ds uke vkSj irs izdk”ku dh frfFk ls lkr fnu ds vUnj izLrqr
fd;s tk;s] vfHkys[kksa dh ewy izfr;kW Hkh izLrqr dh tk;] ftlls ek0
mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns”kksa ds vuqikyu esa dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA
mDr i= fnukad 04-07-1998 dh izfr;kW Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks] Jh
:Lre [kq”kjks xkW/kh] Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh] Jh ukjheu /kqUth
“kk xkW/kh ,oa muds vf/koDrk vftr dqekj ,MoksdsV dks Hkh i=koyh
esa miyC/k mud sirs ij jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk izsf’kr dh xbZA tks i=
fnukad 04-07-1998 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks jftLVMZ Mkd ls izsf’kr
fd;k x;k Fkk] og bl vk[;k ds lkFk fnukad 27-07-1998 dks
dk;kZy; esa okil izkIr gqvk fd ^^vxys eghuk vxLr esa vk;saxs]
ckgj x;s gSaA** blh izdkj Jh :Lre [kq”kjks “kkiwj th xkW/kh }kjk
fu’ikfnr viathd`r ikoj vkQ ,Vkuhz esa cEcbZ dk irk vafdr FkkA
mlh irs ij Hksth xbZ jftLVMZ Mkd Hkh fnukad 05-08-1998 okil
izkIr gksdj i=koyh esa layXu gSA rRi”pkr Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk
vius i= fnukad 08-09-1998 ds lkFk rhljs ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;kW
fnukafdr 20-12-1994 ,oa 28-12-1994 dze”k% Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk
xkW/kh ds firk dk uke /kqUth “kk [kq”kjks xkW/kh vafdr djkdj izLrqr

dh xbZ ijUrq bu nksuksa ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh iathd`r
ugha djkbZ xbZ gSaA Jh :Lre [kq”kjks xkW/kh Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk
xkW/kh o Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ftuds uke Hkh dHkh utwy
lEifRr iaftdk esa vafdr ugha gq, vkSj u gh buds ukeksa ls iz”uxr
utwy Hkw[k.Mksa dk dHkh dksbZ iV~Vk gh fn;k x;kA ,sls “kkldh;
utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141] flfoy LVs”ku] ftlds iV~Vs dh vof/k
fnukad 07-06-1975 dks lekIr gks pqdh gS] ds lEcU/k esa izFker%
fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds i{k esa dksbZ ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ fu’ikfnr djus ds
vf/kdkjh ugha FksA blds vfrfjDr mijksDrkuqlkj rhu&rhu ckj
mijksDr tks ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ka i=koyh esa izLrqr dh xbZ gSa og
rhuksa gh Hkzked ,oa lafnX/k gksus ds dkj.k muds lR;rk ij
iz”ufpUg yxk gqvk izrhr gksrk gSA
eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh ds i= fnukad 13-04-1994 ds voyksdu
ls Hkh Li’V gS fd iz”uxr viathd`r olh;rukes dks izksosV djkdj
izLrqr fd;s tkus dh ekax fd;s tkus ds ckotwn Hkh] lkFk gh blds
fy;s vuqLekjd i= Hksts tkus ds ckotwn Hkh eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh
dks dksbZ mRrj izkIr ugha gqvk kSj olh;rukek izksosV djkdj u rks
eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k u gh
v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa gh izLqrr fd;k x;kA mDr i= fnukad
13-04-1994 ds vUrxZr eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkh ;g voxr
djk;k tk pqdk gS fd Hkw[k.M dh LFkyh; tkap ,oa losZ djk;k

x;kA iz”uxr Hkw[k.M ds 1940 oxZxt ij isVªksy iEi dk fuekZ.k
iV~Vs dh “krksZa dk mYya?ku gS] lkFk gh 205 oxZxt ij vukf/kd`r
:i ls fd;k x;k fuekZ.k Hkh iV~Vs dh “krksZa dk mYya?ku gSA mDr
1940 oxZxt ,oa 205 oxZxt {ks=Qy dh fLFkfr losZ Iyku esa n”kkZrs
gq,] mDr i= ds lkFk losZ Iyku Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh
fLFkfr esa eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh] uxj fuxe] bykgkckn }kjk Hkh mDr
i= fnukad 13-04-1994 ds ek/;e ls iz”uxr Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk
fujLr fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tk pqdh gSA blds vfrfjDr izHkkjh
vf/kdkjh ¼utwy½ uxj egkikfydk] bykgkckn ds i= fnukad 09-05-
1994 ds vUrxZr Hkh voxr djk;k x;k gS fd iz”uxr Hkw[k.M ds
1940 oxZxt ij isVªksy iEi dk fuekZ.k rFkk 205 oxZxt ij fd;k
x;k vukf/kd`r fuekZ.k ewy iV~Vs esa fufnZ’B “krksZa dk Li’V mYya?ku
gS] vr% iz”uxr iV~Vk fujLr fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh x;h gSA
mi;qZDr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa fof/kd fLFkfr;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa
mDr viathd`r olh;rukes fnukafdr 16-08-1969 rFkk 31-08-1971 esa
iz”uxr “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M dk dksbZ fooj.k vafdr u gksus ds
dkj.k bls iz”uxr “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M ds fy;s fof/k ekU; ugha
dgk tk ldrkA mDr nksuksa olh;rdrkZ fgUnw ugha gSa] blfy;s
bfM;u lDls”ku ,sDV 1925 A,sDV ua0&39 lu~ 1925A dh /kkjk
212] 213 ds vUrxZr mDr nksukas olh;rukeksa dks izksosV djk;k tkuk
vko”;d Fkk] ijUrq eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh }kjk blds fy;s vis{kk

fd;s tkus ds ckotwn Hkh mDr olh;rukeksa dks izksosV ugha djk;k
x;k gSA olh;rdrkZvksa ds uke ls iz”uxr “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M
dk vHkh dksbZ iV~Vk Hkh ugha fn;k x;k Fkk] blfy;s Hkh mUgas iz”uxr
“kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ olh;r djus dk vf/kdkj
ugha FkkA ,sls vfof/kd ,oa viq’V olh;rukeksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh
:Lre [kq”kjksa xkW/kh] Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ,oa Jh ukjhey
/kqUth “kk xkW/kh dksbZ Hkh ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ iz”uxr iV~Vk vof/k
lekIr “kkldh; utwy Hkw[k.M ds lEcU/k esa fu’ikfnr djus ds fy;s
vf/kdkjh ugha Fksa ogha ugh Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ,oa Jh
ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh }kjk fu’ikfnr rhu&rhu viathd`r ikoj
vkQ ,VkfuZ;kWa dh tks Nk;k izfr;ka i=koyh esa izLrqr dh x;h gSa]
muesa ls dksbZ Hkh lR; izrhr ugha gksrhA ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ fnukad
29-08-1977 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk ighy ckj izLrqr dh x;h gS] bu
nksuksa ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa ds fu’iknd Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh
rFkk Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh nksuksa esa ls fdlh ds Hkh firk dk
uke vafdr ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr bu nksuksa ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa
esa ls dksbZ Hkh Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds i{k esa fu’ikfnr ugha gSa] cfYd
budk fu’iknu Jh /kqUth “kk [kq”kjks xkW/kh ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gSA
,slh fLFkfr esa tks Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh ds i{k esa ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ
fu’ikfnr gh ugha gS rks mlds vk/kkj ij mDr Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh dks
iz”uxr Hkw[k.M ds iV~Vs ds fy;s izkFkZuki= izLrqr djus dkdksbZ

vf/kdkj ugha FkkA rRi”pkr nwljh ckj nks ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;kaW
fnukafdr 02-06-1992 Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk izLrqr dh x;h] bu
nksuksa ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa esa fu’iknd Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh
,oa Jh ukjheu /kqUth “kk xkW/kh ds firk dk uke Lo0 [kq”kjks “kkiwj
th xkW/kh vafdr gS tks xyr gksus ds lansg esa ckj&ckj i=kpkj djus
ij Hkh muds firk dk lgh uke /kqUth “kk [kq”kjks xkW/kh vafdr
djokrs gq, jftLVMZ ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djus ds
ctk; mDr Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk iz”uxr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k
32950@1994 ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dj nh xbZ vkSj
mlesa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad 25-05-1998
muds AJh Mh0,Q0 xkW/khA ds vf/koDrk Jh vthr dqekj }kjk
dk;kZy; esa izLrqr fd;k x;kA tc ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr
vkns”k ds vuqikyu esa dk;kZokgh gsrq iqu% firk ds lgh uke dh
ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ iathd`r djkdj izLrqr djus gsrq ,oa vU; lqlaxr
vfHkys[k rFkk lk{; izlrqr djus gsrq vis{kk dh xbZ rks mDr Jh
Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh }kjk vius i= fnukad 08-09-1998 ds lkFk dk;kZy;
esa viathd`r ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ fnukad 20-12-1994 rFkk 28-12-1994
izLrqr dh xbZ gSA izFker% rks rhuksa ckj izLrqr dh xbZ ikoj vkQ
,VkfuZ;ksa esa ls fdlh dk Hkh iathdj.k u djk;k tkuk gh mudks
lafnX/krk ds ?ksjs esa yk nsrk gSA ;fn budk fu’iknu lgh O;fDr;ksa
}kjk fd;k x;k gskrk rks os vius firk dk uke u Hkwyrs vkSj firk

dk uke rks vo”; lgh djk dj gh mls fu’ikfnr djrsA blds
vfrfjDr de ls de ;g mYys[k rks djrs fd mUgkasus blds iwoZ
fnukad 29-08-1977 dks ,d vU; ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ tks Jh /kqUth “kk
[kq”kjks xkW/kh ds i{k esa fu’ikfnr dh gS rks mls fujLr djds ;g
ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ fnukad 02-06-1992 fu’ikfnr dj jgs gSa ;k de ls
de ;gh mYys[k djrs fd bl ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ ds lkFk gh lkFk
mudh iwoZ ikoj vkQ ,VkuhZ fnukad 02-06-1992 esa ugha fd;k x;k
gSA blh izdkj rhljh ckj fu’ikfnr ikoj vkQ ,Vkuh fnukad 20-12-
1994 rFkk fnukad 28-12-1994 esa Hkh iwoZ esa fu’ikfnr ikoj vkQ
,VkfuZ;ksa dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vFkok muds izHkkoh
jgus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh mYys[k u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k Hkh bu
lHkh ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa dh lR;rk ij iz”ufpUg yxrk gS vkSj
mudh lafnX/krk dh iqf’V Hkh gksrh gSA ;gh ugha Hkkjrh; LVkEi
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&35 rFkk iathdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 32 o 33
ds vUrxZr mijksDr ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa ;Fkkfof/k LFkkfir u djk;s
tkus ds dkj.k Hkh mUgsa lk{; ds :i esa xzkg~; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA
bl izdkj vfof/kekU;] viq’V] viathd`r] vukf/kd`r ,oa fcuk izksosV
djk;s gq, mijksDr olh;rukeksa rFkk iathd`r] vekU; ,oa lafnX/k
ikoj vkQ ,VkfuZ;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 07-06-1975 dks iw.kZ :i
ls iV~Vkof/k lekIr gks pqds “kkldh utwy Hkw[k.M] ftl ij ewy
iV~Vs dh “krksZa dk Li’V mYya?ku Hkh ik;k x;k gS] dk iV~Vk fn;s

tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS vkSj eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ
laLrqfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij iz”uxr Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk fujLr fd;k tkuk
gh lehphu izrhr gksrk gSA vr% ,rn~}kjk eSa utwy eSuqvy ds
izLrj&5 esa izkfo/kkfur O;oLFkk ,oa mlesa iznRr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, vkns”k nsrk gwW fd iz”uxr utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141
flfoy LVs”ku {ks=Qy 4 ,dM+ 636 oxZxt ij vafdr e`rd O;fDr
Jh [kq”kjks “kkiwj th xkW/kh dk uke fujLr djds mRrj izns”k ljdkj
dk uke vafdr fd;k tk; vkSj “kklu ds i{k esa iz”uxr Hkw[k.M ij
dCtk izkIr djus dh fu;ekuqlkj rRdky dk;Zokgh lqfuf”pr fd;k
tk;A
¼nsos”k prqosZnh½
ftykf/kdkjh] bykgkcknA
i= la[;k 95¼5½@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½ fnukad 15
uoEcj 2002
izfrfyfi%&
1& eq[; uxj vf/kdkjh] uxj fuxe] bykgkckn dks vfHkys[kksa
esa rRdky mijksDrkuqlkj la”kks/ku djrs gq, vuqikyu
lqfuf”pr fd;s tkus gsrq izsf’krA
2& vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼foRr ,oa jktLo½ bykgkckn dks
vuqikyu djkus gsrq izsf’krA

3& izHkkjh vf/kdkjh AutwyA@mi ftykf/kdkjh AlnjA
bykgkckn dks Hkh vfHkys[kksa rn~uqlkj la”kks/ku djrs gq,
vuqikyu lqfuf”pr fd;s tkus gsrq izsf’kr gSA
4& Jh :Lre [kq”kjks “kkiwj th xkW/kh iq= Lo0 [kq”kjks “kkiwj th
xkW/kh] fuoklh usoh gkml] dksykik eqEcbZ 400001 dks
lwpukFkZ izsf’krA
5& Jh tgkWxhj /kqUth “kk xkW/kh iq= Jh /kqUth “kk [kq”kjks xkW/kh
fuoklh 9ch vkbZ0,y0Iyktk] fyfVy fxCol jksM ekyk/kkj
fgy eqEcbZ 400006 dks lqpukFkZA
6& Jh Mh0,Q0 xkW/kh iq= Lo0 ,Q0,l0 xkW/kh fuoklh xqfyLrk
18&,@30@38 ,y0ih0 jksM] A,fYxu jksMA bykgkckn dks
lwpukFkZ izsf’kr gSA
prqosZnhA
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA
ENCLOSURE NO.2
g0 vLi’V
Ansos”k
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT
IN WRIT PETITION NO.6387 OF 2008

AFR
Reserved
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6387 of 2008.
Rustam Khusro Shapoor Ji Gandhi and others..... Petitioners.
Versus
State of U.P. and others. .... .. Respondents.
--------
Present:
(Hon. Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon. Mr. Justice Ashok
Srivastava)
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Sri Rahul Sripat & Sri Arvind Srivastava.
For the Respondents : Sri P.S.Baghel, Sr. Advocate, Sri
Gautam Baghel, Sri Krishna Mohan, Sri
Yashwant Verma, Sri Mahendra Prakash, Sri
M.C.Chaturvedi, C.S.C.
--------
Amitava Lala, J.— One Sri D.F.Gandhi, the Special Power of
Attorney holder of all the three petitioners herein has filed this
writ petition on 29th January, 2008 claiming inter alia:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondents to grant free hold
rights to the Petitioners on Nazul Plot No. 141, Civil
Station, Allahabad, against their application, filed on
12.8.1997, within a reasonable specified period.
(ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case.”

According to the petitioners, on 8th June, 1925 Nazul Plot
No.141, Civil Station, Allahabad was leased out to one Khusro
Shapoor Ji Gandhi for a period of 50 years, to expire on 7th
June, 1975. After death of original lessee, his widow Smt. Dina
K. Gandhi succeeded his rights on the said Nazul Plot and she
made an application for renewal of the lease on 13th May,
1974. After death of Smt. Dina K. Gandhi on 6th March, 1978,
her son and grand sons, the petitioners herein, succeeded the
said plot on the basis of Will executed by her, which was duly
probated. The petitioners appointed Sri D.F.Gandhi as their
Attorney to do necessary pairvi for renewal of the lease and
ultimately they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32950 of 1994,
which was disposed of by an order dated 25 th May, 1998
passed by the High Court directing that the petitioner's lease
shall be renewed within a month in accordance with law, where
after the District Magistrate Allahabad rejected the said
application for renewal of the lease on 15th November, 2002.
Thereafter the petitioners filed another writ petition, being Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 20379 of 2003, which was also disposed
of by an order dated 24th August, 2005 holding that the said
order dated 25th May, 1998 has become final and if such order
has not been complied with, the appropriate remedy for the
petitioners is to file an application for contempt of Court.
Ultimately, Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 3246 of 2006 was
filed by the petitioners in which notice was issued by an order

dated 23rd May, 2007 against which as well as aforesaid two
orders, dated 25th May, 1998 and 24 th August, 2005, SLP No.
18393-18395 of 2007 was filed before Supreme Court, which
has been dismissed by an order dated 20 th March, 2009. But
the fact remains that petitioner's lease with regard to said Nazul
plot has not been renewed till date.
However, during pendency of the first writ petition being
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32950 of 1994, petitioners made an
application dated 12th August, 1997 for grant of free hold rights
in their favour on said Nazul Plot No. 141 under Government
Orders dated 3rd October, 1994, 17th February 1996 and 28th
February, 1997. Thereafter petitioners nominated three persons
namely Dr. A.K.Bansal, Sri Kailash Jaiswal and Sri S.K.Garg for
grant of free hold rights in their favour and made an other
application in the year 2003 under the nomination policy
allegedly without knowledge of the fact that by the Government
Order dated 10th December, 2002 the nomination policy was
brought to an end, therefore, the aforesaid application for grant
of free hold rights by nomination being against the policy
decision was rejected on 5th May, 2005. Prior to rejection of the
said application, the petitioners executed an agreement for sale
on 15th February, 2005 to transfer said Nazul Plot No. 141 in
favour of said three persons namely Dr. A.K.Bansal, Sri Kailash
Jaiswal and Sri S.K.Garg with a pre-condition that the sale-

deed shall be executed by the petitioners only after the free
hold rights are granted to them.
Against this background, State has contended before this
Court that when Sri D.K.Gandhi, the power of attorney holder
had executed aforesaid registered agreement for sale in favour
of three persons in respect of entire property in question with
the recital that entire sale consideration of Rs. 1.35 Crores has
been paid by the vendees before April, 2004 and also executed
a Kabjanama/possession-deed on 17th March, 2005 containing
complete description of the Nazul Plot No. 141 and
constructions thereon from which it appears that the possession
of entire property was being handed over to the vendees and
the petitioners relinquished their possession, no right, title or
interest of the petitioners over the property in question,
subsists. It has further contended that the application for grant
of free hold right dated 13 th August, 2004 made by one of the
vendees namely Sri Kailash Jaiswal for himself and two others,
namely Dr. A.K.Bansal and Sri Surendra Kumar Garg was duly
considered and rejected by the Collector vide order dated 5th
May, 2005 but the same was not challenged before any forum.
After such rejection, another application was filed on 26th June,
2006 by said Sri Kailash Jaiswal was made to the State
Government which was transmitted to the office of A.D.M.
(Additional District Magistrate) Nazul, Allahabad and the State

espondents had come to know for the first time that the claim
set up by the vendees of the petitioners for free hold in respect
of the plot in question was made on 12th August, 1997. Neither
the application was pursued by them nor the same was
accompanied with relevant materials except a treasury challan
of Rs. 100/- and therefore, the same was incomplete in nature.
In any event the writ petition herein is in the nature of proxy
petition since the agreement for sale is not only registered but
exchange of entire sale consideration has been completed,
therefore, leaving aside the recital that the sale deed will be
executed by the petitioners only after free hold rights are
granted to them, the sale is complete in compliance of Section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Against this background we have to see whether the
petitioners have come with clean hands to enforce their legal
right, if any, or not. It is further to be seen whether the Special
Power of Attorney holder is, in effect, an attorney before us to
spouse the cause of petitioners or the alleged purchasers Dr.
A.K.Bansal, Sri Kailash Jaiswal and Sri S.K.Garg. We have
gone through the copy of Power of Attorney executed by the
petitioners in favour of the Power of Attorney holder. The Power
of Attorney annexed with the writ petition being Annexure 1 to
the writ petition, dated 5th April, 2004 executed in front of a
Notary, is a Special Power of Attorney to execute formal

agreement for sale in favour of aforesaid 3 vendees inclusive of
various other works, specially to conduct the entire proceedings
for conversion of property into free hold before the appropriate
authority having jurisdiction in the matter. From the plain
reading of the Power of Attorney it appears that the Power of
Attorney is made to protect the interest of the alleged
purchasers of the property. It is to be remembered that there is
a difference between the “Special Power of Attorney” and
“General Power of Attorney” and since this Power of Attorney is
“Special Power of Attorney” to spouse the cause of the
vendees, there is no doubt and dispute that the petition is
virtually proxy petition by such Power of Attorney holder.
The right regarding Nazul plots may accrue out of lease,
provided the lease holder fulfills the conditions time to time and
got the extension of lease hold interests in connection thereto.
Such interest holder, upon being called by the State can make
an application to convert such land into a free hold land. In the
instant case no lease hold right of the original lessee being the
named petitioners has been renewed, therefore, they have no
basis to seek for free hold right in respect of the land in
question. Though the lease hold right and free hold right are
distinct and different but when the foundation of the case is
based on lease hold interest, both are interlinked, therefore,
one cannot seek free hold interest on the basis of his

possessory rights through the occupants or vendees as a
matter of course. By the agreement for sale and considerations
having been passed on fully, the vendees stepped in the shoes
of vendors in respect of such rights but the Power of Attorney
holder by this proxy petition wants to get better right for the
vendees. Moreover, a large number of statutory tenants already
acquired rights who are also strongly objecting the renewal of
lease or grant of free hold right of the persons interested
because they have become interested by virtue of their
possession as statutory tenant.
An additional fact as pointed out to us is also required to
be seen. As per Paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Nazul Manual, if it
is proposed to sell or lease any Nazul land in the vicinity of a
Railway Station or Civil Courts, the railway administration or the
District Judge, as the case may be, shall always be consulted,
therefore, such principles can also be applicable in respect of
the land in the vicinity of the High Court for consultation from
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court. In any event, a
further question can arise before this Court whether a writ of
Certiorari or Mandamus can be issued in favour of the Power of
Attorney holder, on which there is a direct judgment of this
Court being reported in 2003 (4) AWC 3010 (Dr. Prabhu Nath
Prasad Gupta vs. State of U.P. & others) which has held that
the writ petition by Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner

seeking relief in the nature of writ of Certiorari for aggrieved
person is not maintainable. The only exception is in respect of
writ of Habeas Corpus and writ of Quo Warranto. We have also
verified such ratio in the Division Bench judgment of this Court
to which one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) was a Member reported in
2008 (3) AWC 2186 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Mumbai vs. M/S Amar Autos and others) wherein a
distinguishing feature arose about maintainability of suit and
writ petition by the Power of Attorney holder. It was held therein
that as because a plaint or written statement in any suit or
memorandum of appeal in any civil appeal are supported by
verification, there is a chance to examine authenticity of the
person claiming to be the Power of Attorney holder. But neither
such mechanism is available to the writ petitioners nor it is
based on any verification for further scrutiny. It is based on
personal affidavit. It has also been confirmed by further Division
Bench presided by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.) in C.M.W.P. No.
44007 of 1998 along with other two matters (Smt. Gurmeet
Kaur Kwatra vs. Vice Chairman, Varanasi Development
Authority Varanasi and others) by extending the bar up to
scope of writ of Mandamus and Prohibition along with writ of
Certiorari.
Against this background we cannot hold and say that the
writ petitioners' prayer to send the matter for considering the

cause by the authority seem to be an innocent prayer on the
part of named petitioners nor the writ petition seems to be
maintainable by the Power of Attorney holder. Having so, no
affirmative order in favour of the petitioners can be passed,
therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without
imposing any cost.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
I agree.
(Justice Ashok Srivastava)
Dated: February 8, 2010.
KST/-
(Justice Amitava
Lala)

ENCLOSURE NO.3
JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.1998
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P. NO.32950 OF 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL SIDE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
DATED ALLAHABAD THE: 25 TH May, 1998
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE M. KATJU ---- JUDGE.
THE HON’BLE I.M. QUDDUSI ---- JUDGE.
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.32950 OF 1994
Order on the petition of Rustam K.S. Gandhi and others.
Inre:-
1. Rustam K.S. Gandhi son of Sri Khusru S. Gandhi.
2. Jahangir Dhunji Shaw K. Gandhi.
3. Nariman Dhunji Shaw Gandhi.
Both son of Dhunji Shaw K. Gandhi.
Through General Attorney Dossabhey Framrose Gandhi,
son of late F.S. Gandhi resident of Gulistan, 1/8-A Elgin
Road, Allahabad.
Petitioner.
Vs.
-------
1. State of U.P. through Secretary Avas Secretariat, U.P.
Lucknow.
2. Collector/Distt. Magistrate, Allahabad.
3. Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Allahabad.

4. Nagar Nigam/Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad through its
Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Allahabad.
ts.
-------
Responden

:BY THE COURT:
The facts of this case are covered by the Judgment of this
Court in P.D. Tandon Vs. State of U.P. 1987 AIR 92.
This petitioner is disposed of on the same terms and
conditions as in the aforesaid decision. The petitioner’s lease
shall be renewed within a month in accordance with law.
Dt/- 25.05.1998 Sd/- M. Katju.
Quddusi.
Sd/- I.M.
:TRUE COPY
SD/- ILLEGIBLE
S.O. COPYING SECTION (D)
HIGH COURT AT ALLAHABAD

ENCLOSURE NO.4
JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2005
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P. NO.20379 OF 2003

COURT NO.34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.20379 OF 2003
Rustom Khusro Sapurji Gandhi and others -------
Petitioners.
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others ------
HON. DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
Respondents.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order
dated 15.11.2002 by which the application of the petitioners for
renewing the lease of the Nazul Land which is in possession of
the petitioners and for which a lease has been granted in favour
of the petitioner has been rejected.
I have heard Sri Ravi Kant learned Senior Advocate and
Sri C.K. Rai, Standing Counsel for the respondents. A large
nuance of issues have been caused by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. However, the petitioner had approached this
Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No.32950 of 1994 wherein
the petition was allowed with the following directions:
“The facts of this case are covered by the judgment of this
Court in P.D. Tandon Vs. State of U.P. 1987 AIR 92.

“This petition is disposed of on the same terms and
conditions as in the aforesaid decision. The petitioner’s
lease shall be renewed within a month in accordance with
law.”
Thus by allowing the earlier writ petition a direction had
been issued to the respondents to grant renewal of the lease
and no option had been given to the respondents to reject the
application. The respondents had been asked only to perform
the ministerial act; therefore, any order passed in contravention
of this order is null and void whether this Court would have
passed such an order is a debatable issue. However, the order
has attained the finality and the issue cannot be reopened in
these proceedings. In such a case if the judgment and order
dated 25.05.1998 has not been complied with by the
respondents, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to file
an application for contempt of Court for no complying with the
order of the Court.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
24.08.2005 Sd/- Dr. B.S. Chauhan,
J.
Sd/- Shishir Kumar, J.

ENCLOSURE NO.5
JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2006
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3246 OF 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Certification of copy of order Judgment to Lower Court
DATED ALLAHABAD THE: 19 TH August, 2006
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE A.P. SAHI, ---- JUDGE.
CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3246 OF 2006
Inre:-
1. Rustam Khusro Supurji Gandhi son of Sri Khusru Sapurji
Gandhi R/O Navy House, Colaba, Mumbai-4000001.
2. Jahangir Dhunji Shaw Gandhi.
3. Nariman Dhunji Shaw Gandhi.
Both son of Dhunji Shaw Khusro Gandhi R/O 9-DI.L,
Plazzo, D.D. Kher Road, Mahavir Mills, Mumbai,
petitioer’s Gandhi, son of constitute attorney Shri
Dossabhey Framrose Gandhi, son of late F.S. Gandhi,
R/O Gulistan, 18-A/30, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,
Allahabad.
-------
Petitioners.
Vs.
1. Sri Amrit Abhijat, presently posted as District Magistrate,
Allahabad.
2. Sri Devesh Chaturvedi Former District Magistrate,
Allahabad presently posted as Director SIPSA, Uptron
Building, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
3. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Misra presently posted as Secretary
Housing, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Government, Lucknow.
4. Ram Lochan Yadav presently posted as Additional
District Magistrate (Nazul), Allahabad.
-------
ts.
Responden

(DISTRICT : ALLAHABAD)
:ORDER:
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IS ATTACHED.
Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.3246 of 2006
Rustam Khusru Sapurdagi Gandhi and others
Versus
COURT NO.18
Sri Amrit Abhijat, District Magistrate, Allahabad and others.
Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.
Heard Sri U.N. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted
by Sri Rahul Sripat, for the applicant.
The applicants contend that their application, which is
pending consideration before the District Magistrate, Allahabad
for renewal of their lease in terms of the judgment; dated
25.05.1998 in W.P. No.32950 of 1994 has not been disposed of
so far and which action of the District Magistrate, Allahabad
amounts to a disobedience keeping in view the judgment dated
24.08.2005 in writ petition No.20379 of 2003 between the same
parties. The said judgment is Annexure-V to this application.
A perusal of the same demonstrates that the court was of
the opinion that the District Magistrate had no option available
to him for rejecting the application of the applicants for renewal
of lease. The Court further observed that the respondents

therein including the District Magistrate, Allahabad had only to
perform a ministerial act. However, the court did to chose to
quash the order dated 05.11.2002, which was impugned. The
court further observed that the judgment dated 25.05.1998 had
attained finality and the question as to whether such a judgment
could have been delivered or not might be a debatable issue.
What the court intended to say was that the judgment and order
dated 25.05.1998 was open to scrutiny only by a higher court
and not by this Court as the said judgment had attained finality.
The court further observed that the said issue could not be
reopened in the proceedings, which were disposed of on
24.08.2005.
The judgment dated 24.08.2005 gave liberty to the
applicants to approach the contempt court for non compliance
of the judgment if any. It is in this back ground that the present
contempt proceeding has been instituted.
During the course of submission, the order passed by this
court in writ petition No.2547 of 2005 (PIL) were produced. A
perusal of the order dated 14.07.2006 indicates a consideration
of the orders passed by this court referred to herein above. The
relevant portion of the order dated 14.07.2006, which is para 16
(B) is quoted herein below:-
“Nazul plot no.141 Civil Station-Opposite High Court.

We are informed that Rushtam K.S. Gandhi has
filed writ petition no.32950 of 1994 wherein Division
Bench of this court passed order dated 25.05.1998 to the
effect that petition is disposed of on the same terms and
condition as in the case of P.D. Tandon Vs. State of U.P.
and others. Thereafter writ petition No.20379 of 2003
(Rushtam K.S. Gandhi and two others Vs. State of U.P.
and others) for quashing of the order dated 15.11.2002
was filed by which the application of the petitioner for
renewing lease of the said Nazul land was rejected.
Division Bench of this court, in the light of the case of P.D.
Tandon (1987 A.I.R. 1992) disposed of the petition
observing that judgment of the court was not complied by
respondents, appropriate remedy was to file contempt
petition. There is nothing on record to show that any
action has been taken by way of contempt or otherwise.
It is settled proposition of law that a issue, which
has not been considered by the Court while delivering a
judgment cannot be said to be binding.
In Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission and others, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2661, the Apex
Court held that a judgment of the Court is not to be read
as a statute as it is to be remembered that judicial
utterances have been made in setting of the facts of a

particular case. Substantial flexibility one additional or
different fact may make a world of difference between the
conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly
placing reliance upon a decision is not proper.
In Jawaral Sazawal & ors Vs. State of Jammu &
Kashmir & ors A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1187 Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that a judgment may not be followed in a given
case if it has some distinguishing features.
Be that as it may we find no obstacle in the way of
State Government/Administration to proceed with
acquisition proceedings in public interest. Nazul
Department is hereby directed to take immediate steps for
acquisition f the said land.”
The said order appears to have been slightly modified
presumably in view of the fact that there are other interim
orders operating in various other writ petitions. The modified
order dated 31.07.2006 is quoted herein below:-
Building.
“Parking in Civil Lines Area/Market/Around High Court
ADA/Nagar Nigam are directed to expedite the
process of acquiring the land in civil lines Market area for
providing space for vehicles parking in the light of Court’s

order dated 14.07.2006 Site over which ADA has
sanctioned plan and Chief Town Planner accorded NOC
shall be excluded while considering compulsory
acquisition for parking.
As far as the direction of this Court for acquiring
land for providing parking plots/around High Court
premises is concerned it is made clear that ADA should
first prepare project of Multi Storeyed parking keeping in
mind number of vehicles which are proposed to be parked
and the area r3quired for the same which should face
both Roads/Nyaya Marg and Elgin Road.
Existing premises structure/s facing main/ate of
High Court Building should be maintained as it is where it
is No Multi storeyed complex/building should be permitted
which may spoil the ambiance of High Court building.”
Learned counsel for the applicants has informed the court
that a recall application has been filed for recalling of the said
orders which is pending consideration.
Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, placed reliance
on 2 decisions to urge that the interim directions contained in
the orders dated 14.07.2006 and 31.07.2006 in the Public
Interest Litigation virtually tend to eclipse and declare the final

judgments dated 25.05.1998 and 24.08.2005 as if they were
Otiose or Obiter. He contends that once a decision was arrived
at inter-parties clearly acknowledging a right in favour of the
applicant to seek renewal of the lease, then a coordinate
Bench, with the utmost of respect, could not have sidelined and
diluted the effect of the same.
Sri Sharma has invited the attention of the Court to the
contents of paragraph no.6 of the decision of a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Provincial Medical Services
Association, U.P., and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in (2004)2 UPLBEC 2975, which is quoted herein
below:
“A Coordinate Bench does not have a right to
examine the correctness of a Division Bench judgment
unless it is held to be per incurlam or based on evidence
not on record, being perverse, and even for that purpose,
the matter is to be referred to a Larger Bench. The judicial
discipline does not warrant sitting in appeal against the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench.”
The second decision to which Sri Sharma invited the
attention of the Court is in the case of Vikramjit Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh (1992) Suppl.3 SCC 62, wherein in
paragraph no.3, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-

“3. The application was listed before Mr. Justice Gupta
who by the impugned judgment cancelled the earlier
order of Mr. Justice B.C. Varma and while so doing made
strong remarks against grant of bail in cases like the
present one. The appellant has now challenged the
judgment before this Court. It appears that the learned
judge while passing the impugned order, failed to
appreciate that no bench can comment on the functioning
of a co-ordinate bench of the same court, much less sit in
judgment as an appellate court over its decision. If the
State was aggrieved by the order of bail by Mr. Justice
B.C. Varma it could have approached this Court but, that
was not done. The judgment of Mr. Justice B.C. Varma,
therefore, became final so far the High Court was
concerned. If the appellant had misused the bail or new
materials came to light, it would have been open to the
prosecution to move for cancellation, but that is not the
positioning the present case. On the basis of the same
materials and in the same circumstances in which the
order was earlier passed in favour of the appellant by the
High Court, the application for cancellation was made
entirely as a sequel of the observations made by Mr.
Justice Gupta while dealing with the application of
another accused. It must be, therefore, held that Mr.

Justice Gupta had no authority to upset the earlier order
of the High Court. That which could not be done directly
could also not be done indirectly. Otherwise a party
aggrieved by an order passed by one bench of the High
Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter
reopened before another bench, and there would not be
any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent
with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by
courts both in the interest of administration of justice by
assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes
final, and the faith of the people in the judiciary. The
impugned order dated July 16, 1991 is, therefore, set
aside and the order dated July 6, 1990 granting bail to the
appellant is restored.”
It has been urged that the impact of the judgments in
favour of the applicant cannot be taken away and can only be
diluted by the judicial Intervention of a higher Court. It is urged
that a coordinate Bench cannot either in any collateral
proceedings or as in the present case in a Public Interest
Litigation take away the binding effect thereof more so when
the applicant was not even made a party to the Public Interest
Litigation.
Sri Sharma has further urged that the 2 decisions referred
to in the order dated 14.07.2006 are not attracted at all. He has

urged that the case of Ashwani Kumar Singh (2003) 11 SCC
584, was on a different issue i.e. about the manner of reading a
judgment. The aforesaid ratio, according to Sri Sharma, is for
considering the binding effect of a judicial pronouncement when
it is being cited as a precedent. According to him, the said
decision, therefore, would not apply inasmuch as here the
decisions dated 25.05.1998 and 24.08.2005 are decisions
between the same parties on a issue as to whether the
applicant is entitled for renewal of his lease or not. The
decisions are not precedent but they are judgment between the
parties themselves. The principles of Res Judicata are clearly
attracted herein.
Similarly he contends that the case of Jawahar Lal
Sajawal, (222)3 SCC 219, relief upon by the Division Bench in
the Public Interest Litigation also has no application inasmuch
as para 16 of the said judgment states that in the absence of
any distinguishing feature the decisions which were referee to
therein ought to have been followed. The Division Bench, on
the other hand, has carved out a corollary contrary to the same
and has, therefore, erred in suggesting that there was no
obstacle in the passage of the State Government to proceed
with the acquisition proceedings.
Apart from the aforesaid submissions, Sri Sharma has
hinted that the power to acquire land in a sovereign function to

e discharged by the State under the law framed by the
legislature for the said purpose. He contends that this is
necessary I order to respect the constitutional mandate
contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. This
function, therefore, according to the learned counsel cannot be
taken over by the Judiciary, particularly the High Court by
issuing a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to acquire the land of the applicant. In his submission,
aforesaid direction by the Division Bench clearly sets at aught
the earlier judgments in favour of the applicant seeking renewal
of his lease. The rights of a third party according to him who is
not even party to the litigation, which have accrued to the said
party through a final judgment of this Court, cannot be taken
away in the manner in which it is proposed by the Division
Bench in the Public Interest Litigation. According to Sri Sharma
this amounts to unilaterally issuing directions which in his
submission would be impressible in law. This, he contends,
was not possible as the judgment in favour of the applicant
dated 25.05.1998 read with the observations in the judgment
dated 24.08.2005 were speaking and vocal judgment
acknowledging certain rights in favour of the applicant. It is
urged that even though no certiorari was exercised against the
order dated 05.11.2002 yet the judgment acknowledges the
right of the applicant.

Relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others,
1995 ACJ 200, Sri Sharma has further submitted that judicial
discipline demanded that in case there was any scope of
difference of opinion, which in this case was even otherwise
neither visible nor possible, then in that event the Division
Bench ought to have exercised its power of reference and
should not have issued directions behind their back which
seriously prejudice the rights of the applicants.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, it prima
facie, appears that the arguments advanced on behalf of the
applicants has force. The orders dated 14.07.2006 and
31.07.2006 in a ways, run counter to the final judgments of this
Court dated 25.05.1998 and 24.08.2005 which are inter-parties
and have a binding effect. The State and the District Magistrate
being the Officer of the State, are both bound by the directions
and observations I the judgments dated 25.05.1998 and
24.08.2005. The State and its authorities cannot afford to
disobey the aforesaid judgment. From the facts on record it is
evident that the claim of the applicants for renewal of lease has
been rejected which order was not set-aside and, therefore, the
effect of not quashing the order dated 05.11.2002 has to be
examined.

However, with the passing of the orders dated 14.07.2006
and 31.07.2006, the District Magistrate will have to either obey
the aforesaid judgments or proceed to initiate proceedings for
acquisition of the land. This situation, in the opinion of the
Court, has to be clarified more so to enable this Court to decide
as to whether these contempt proceedings should be
proceeded with or not. The question, therefore, which has to be
first determined is as to whether the directions of the Division
Bench dated 14.07.2006 run counter to or in any way impede
the implementation of the judgments dated 25.05.1998 and
24.08.2005.
Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, it would be
appropriate that the aforesaid issue is resolved by a larger
Bench. In view of the powers contained in Chapter V Rule
2(IX)(b) read with Rule 6, the following questions are framed to
be placed before a larger Bench in order to resolve the conflict
between the final judgments of this Court dated 25.05.1998 and
24.08.2005 and the directions of the Division Bench dated
14.07.2006 as modified on 31.07.2006.
(i) Whether a Coordinate Bench while hearing a Public
Interest Litigation can issue directions without
impleading the affected party which has the effect
of taking away the impact of the final decision in
favour of such party by a Bench of the same
strength;

(ii) Whether the directions dated 14.07.2006 and
31.07.2006 of the Division Bench in the Public
Interest Litigation (Writ Petition No.2547 of 2005)
run counter to and impede the implementation of
the final decision dated 25.05.1998 in Writ Petition
No.32950 of 1994 and the decision dated
24.08.2005 in Writ Petition No.20379 of 2003
keeping in view the fact that the order dated
05.11.2002 had not been quashed.
(iii) Whether the High Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a
mandamus to the State Authorities for acquiring
land in Suo Moto exercise of its powers in a Public
Interest Litigation;
(iv) Whether in such a situation if there are 2 conflicting,
orders judicial discipline demanded a reference to a
larger Bench instead of treating the impact of final
judgments of this Court.
Let the papers of this case be placed before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice to consider the constitution of a larger Bench for
resolving the aforesaid conflict.
Pending disposal of the proceedings it would be
appropriate that no positive action is taken by the District
Magistrate keeping in view of the conflicting orders indicated
herein above and the reference made herein. The District
Magistrate, Allahabad my file his response to this application in
the meantime.
Dt.: 19.08.2006 Sd/- A.P. Sahi, J.

ENCLOSURE NO.6
JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2007
PASSED BY FULL BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3246 OF 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
JUDGE.
JUDGE.
JUDGE.
CIVIL SIDE
ORIGIAL JURISDICTION
DATED ALLAHABAD THE: 26.04.2007
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE SUSHIL HARKAULI, ----
THE HON’BLE S.K. SINGH, ----
THE HON’BLE KRISHNA MURARI, ----
CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3246 OF 2006
Order on the petition of Rustom Khusro Sapurji Gandhi and
others
Inre:-
1. Rustam Khusro Supurji Gandhi son of Sri Khusru Sapurji
Gandhi R/O Navy House, Colaba, Mumbai-4000001.
2. Jahangir Dhunji Shaw Gandhi.
3. Nariman Dhunji Shaw Gandhi.
Both son of Dhunji Shaw Khusro Gandhi R/O 9-DI.L,
Plazzo, D.D. Kher Road, Mahavir Mills, Mumbai,
petitioer’s Gandhi, son of constitute attorney Shri
Dossabhey Framrose Gandhi, son of late F.S. Gandhi,

R/O Gulistan, 18-A/30, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,
Allahabad.
Petitioners.
Vs.
-------
1. Sri Amrit Abhijat, presently posted as District Magistrate,
Allahabad.
2. Sri Devesh Chaturvedi Former District Magistrate,
Allahabad presently posted as Director SIPSA, Uptron
Building, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
3. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Misra presently posted as Secretary
Housing, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Government, Lucknow.
4. Ram Lochan Yadav presently posted as Additional
Reserved.
District Magistrate (Nazul), Allahabad.
ts.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri U.N. Sharma
Counsel for the Respondent:
:BY THE COURT:
Sri Rahul Sripat
Delivered by Hon’ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Contempt Petition No.3246 of 2006
-------
Rustom Khusro Sapurji Gandhi and others
Responden

Hon’ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.
Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.
Versus
Sri Amrit Abhijat and others
(Delivered by Sushil Harkauli, J)
This matter has come up before this Full Bench by the
order dated 19 th September, 2006 passed by the Hon’ble the
Chief Justice upon a reference dated 19 th August 2006 by a
learned single judge of this Court. The learned single judge
framed and referred the following four questions:
(1) Whether a Coordinate Bench while hearing a Public
Interest Litigation can issue directions without
impleading the affected party which has the effect
of taking away the impact of the final decision in
favour of such party by a Bench of the same
strength;
(2) Whether the directions dated 14.07.2006 and
31.07.2006 of the Division Bench in the Public
Interest Litigation (Writ Petition No.2547 of 2005)
run counter to and impede the implementation of
the final decision dated 25.05.1998 in Writ Petition
No.32950 of 1994 and the decision dated
24.08.2005 in Writ Petition No.20379 of 2003

keeping in view the fact that the order dated
05.11.2002 had not been quashed.
(3) Whether the High Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a
mandamus to the State Authorities for acquiring
land in Suo Moto exercise of its powers in a Public
Interest Litigation;
(4) Whether in such a situation if there are 2 conflicting,
orders judicial discipline demanded a reference to a
larger Bench instead of treating the impact of final
judgments of this Court to be obiter.
Facts Necessitating the Reference
A lease of Nazul plot No.141, Civil Station, Allahabad,
was originally granted in favour of Sapurji Rustam Gandhi and
his son Khusro Sapurji Gandhi on 8 th June, 1925 for a period
of50 years. The tenancy rights devolved upon Rustam Khusro
Sapurji Gandhi, Jehangir D. Gandhi and Nariman D. Gandhi
(hereinafter these three persons are referred to as petitioners
for short), through testaments of will executed by the original
lessees and, thereafter by the legates.
As the lease was going to expire on 7 th June, 1975, an
application was filed by the lease-holders on 13 th May 1974 for
renewal of the lease. No action was taken by the State to

dispose of the application for renewal of lease and the matter
remained pending with the District Magistrate, Allahabad.
Therefore the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.32950 of 1994
which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 25 th
May, 1998 in the following words:
“The facts of this case are covered by the judgment
of this Court in P.D. Tandon Vs. State of U.P., 1987
A.L.R. 72.
This petition is disposed of on the same terms and
conditions as in the aforesaid decision. The
petitioner’s lease shall be renewed within a month in
accordance with law.”
On 15 th November 2002, the application for renewal of
lease was rejected by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, by a
very detailed order. The order of the District Magistrate dated
15 th November 2002 was challenged by the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.20379 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed
of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24 th August
2005. In the judgment dated 24 th August 2005, the Division
Bench quoted the earlier order dated 25 th May 1998 passed in
Writ Petition No.32950 of 1994, which has been quoted above
in this judgment, and thereafter observed as follows:
“Thus by allowing the earlier writ petition a direction
had been issued to the respondents to grant

enewal o the lease and no option had been given
to the respondents to reject the application. The
respondents had been asked only to perform the
ministerial act; therefore, any order passed in
contravention of this order is null and void. Whether
this Court could have passed such an order is a
debatable issue. However, the order has attained
the finality and the issue can not be reopened in
these proceedings. In such a case, if the judgment
and order dated 25.05.1998 has not been complied
with by the respondents, the appropriate remedy for
the petitioners is to file an application for contempt
of Court for not complying with the order of the
Court.
With these observations, the writ petition is
disposed of”
Thereupon, the petitioners filed the present contempt
petition on 17 th August 2006 seeking punishment of the present
and past District Magistrates, the Additional District Magistrate
(Nazul) Allahabad, and the Secretary (Housing) U.P.
Government for the alleged disobedience of the order dated
25 th May, 1998. The Stamp Reporter reported the contempt
petition to be time barred by almost 7 years.

During the preliminary hearing of this time barred
contempt petition, the learned single judge was shown copies
of two orders dated 14 th July 2006 and 31 st July 2006 passed by
another Division Bench of this Court in a PIL being Writ Petition
No.2547 of 2005. In a nutshell, the Division Bench hearing the
Public Interest Litigation, after noticing the decisions of the Writ
Petition No.31950 of 1994 and Writ Petition No.20379 of 2003,
held by the two orders dated 14 th July 2006 and 31 st July 2006
that it did not find any obstacle in the way of the State
Government/Administration to proceed with the application of
the Nazul land in question in public interest for the purposes of
the High Court and, accordingly issued a direction in the
following words:
“Nazul department is hereby directed to take
immediate steps for acquisition of the said land.”
Thus, the High Court directed the land, of which lease
had been directed to be renewed in favour of the petitioners, to
be acquired for the High Court, which is beyond doubt a public
purpose.
Faced with these apparently conflicting orders i.e. orders
by the Division Benches in the two writ petitions of the
petitioners on one side as against the order passed by the other
Division Bench in the Public Interest Litigation on the other side,

the learned single judge made the reference by his detailed
order dated 19 th August 2006.
THE ANSWERS TO THE REFERRED QUESTIONS:
QUESTION NO.(IV)
Of the 4 questions referred, the 4 th question hardly
requires any debate and indeed there was no serious contest
on that question by the learned counsel before this Full Bench.
It was in fact almost conceded, and we may say rightly
conceded, that where there are two conflicting judicial orders,
judicial discipline requires reference to a larger Bench. And,
subject to the language used in the two conflicting decisions or
orders, it would not be open to mellow down the impact of any
of the conflicting judgments or orders, which have attained
finality, treating it too be obiter. The 4 th question is answered
accordingly.
QUESTION NO.(II)
So far as the second question referred by the learned
single Judge concerned, we do not find any conflict in the
directions issued in the Public Interest Litigation with the
decisions of the two Division Benches in Writ Petitions
No.32950 of 1994 and 20379 of 2003. The two decisions in the
two writ petitions of the petitioners only direct renewal of leas in
favour of the petitioners. We have not been shown any law
which prohibits compulsory acquisition of the land, under the

provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even after the lease
had been renewed, merely because the lease has been
renewed. A renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioners
would not take away the power of the State Government of
compulsory acquisition of the land under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. In fact, the renewal of lease would at
best be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of
compensation. The question no.2 is answered accordingly.
QUESTION NO.(I)
So far as the 1 st question referred by the learned single
judge is concerned, although it does not directly arise in view of
our answer given to the question No.2 above, we have no
doubt that legally once a decision has attained finality in favour
of a party/litigant, no other co-ordinate Bench while hearing a
Public Interest Litigation or a writ petition of other nature can
issue any directions, which could have the effect of taking away
the impact of the final decision without impleading the affected
party, who has obtained the decision which has attained finality,
or even after impleading such party. The reason is that a co-
ordinate Bench cannot sit in appeal and pass a judgment or
issue a direction taking away the impact of a decision, which
has attained finality, as that would virtually mean a co-ordinate
Bench sitting in appeal over the final decision of another Bench
of the same strength.

QUESTION NO.(III)
This brings us to the most important issue which has
been referred by way of the 3 rd question. For convenience, we
reproduce the 3 rd question again:
(3) Whether the High Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a
mandamus to the State Authorities for acquiring land
in Suo Moto exercise of its powers in a Public
Interest Litigation,
Whether the High Court is deciding a Public Interest
Litigation or a private litigation it is, in the ultimate analysis,
exercising the powers vested in the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. A direction in the nature of
mandamus, which is permissible under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has to conform to the well defined limits of
such power as laid down by judicial decisions.
Reference maybe made to the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. Versus Nuruddin
Mallick, 34(1998)8 SCC 143: 199 SCC (L & S) 144, wherein
while considering the extent and dimension of jurisdiction
conferred on superior Courts to issue a writ of mandamus, it
has been observed as under:

“The Courts can either direct the statutory
authorities, where it is not exercising its discretion,
by mandamus to exercise its discretion, or when
exercised, to see whether it has been validly
exercised. It would be in appropriate for the Court to
substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide
the matter.”
It is well settled that a direction in the nature of
mandamus to the executive can be issued as a positive
direction only when the act directed to be done by the
mandamus is a purely ministerial act, no involving any
discretion on part of the executive. Where the executive has a
discretion or adjudicatory function to perform; and the
performance or non-performance of the ministerial act depends
upon such discretionary or adjudicatory function, the
mandamus can merely compel the executive to take a decision
in respect of the discretionary or adjudicatory part of its function
and thereby to decide whether the ministerial act ought or ought
not to be performed. Such a mandamus can also in most of the
cases, fix a time frame for the performance of each of these
functions i.e. the discretionary function and thereafter, if called
for, the ministerial function. If the adjudicatory function or
discretionary function has been wrongly performed by the
executive, it would b open under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India to quash the decision, but again the Court can normally
only direct fresh consideration of the issue by the executive. It
may also be open to the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to guide the adjudicatory or administrative
function by laying down the principles of law, but while
quashing the wrong decision of the executive, it would normally
not be open to the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to substitute its own decision in respect of
the adjudicatory or discretionary function.
The view taken by us finds support from decision of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswaom
Managing Committee and another Versus C.K. Rajan and
others, (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 546, wherein it has
been held as under:
“The High Courts and the Supreme Court would not
ordinarily issue a writ of mandamus directing the
State to carryout its statutory functions in a
particular manner. Normally, the Courts would ask
the State to perform its statutory functions, if
necessary within a time frame and undoubtedly, as
and when an order is passed by the State in
exercise of its power under the statute, it will
examine the correctness or legality thereof by way
of judicial review.”

Coming back to the specific question referred namely,
permissibility of issuing a mandamus to the State to acquire
land in ‘public interest’ under the provisions of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, it would be necessary to examine the scheme of the
acquisition proceedings under the said Act. The various steps
in acquisition proceedings are as follows:
(1) It must first be ascertained by the executive that there
is a public purpose involved.
(2) Then, it has to be ascertained whether land is needed
for the public purpose.
(3) The, it has to be ascertained how much land is needed
for that public purpose.
(4) After ascertainment of the above, a preliminary
Notification under Section 4 of the Act is to be
published in accordance with that section.
(5) Thereafter, except in cases provided under Section
17(4), hearing of objections has to take place under
Section 5A.
(6) After, disposal of the objections, [except in cases of
section 17(4)], a declaration under Section 6 has to be
published.

If a mandamus is permitted to be issued straight away
directing acquiring of a particular land or a particular area of a
particular land, the inquiry under section 5A would become a
meaningless empty formality. More importantly, it is not
inconceivable that there may be a particular case where even
the executive is of the opinion that there exists a ‘public
purpose’, that land is needed for that ‘public purpose’, that a
particular minimum area of a particular land is needed for that
‘public purpose’ and, yet that land cannot be acquired because
the executive is not in a financial position to provide for the
compensation. The State has multifarious public duties and
functions, each of which require the support from the financial
resources of the State. The balancing of the budget and
distribution of available resources among the various
requirements under the Constitution of India is essentially a
function of the Legislature. It would not be appropriate for the
Court to encroach upon such legislative function by directing
allocation of funds in the budget for a particular purpose.
Although, there is one provision in the Constitution namely
Article 202(3)(e) of the Constitution of India, which provides for
charging expenditure on the consolidated fund of each State
with regard to any sums required to satisfy any judgment,
decree or award of any Court or arbitral tribunal, but this
provision must necessarily be confined to apply to only those
matters where the State Government is a partly litigant in a

normal case or arbitral proceedings. We are of the opinion that
even this provision cannot be utilized for holding that the Court
can keep creating financial liability on the State to meet public
welfare schemes which the Court may evolve in its wisdom.
What is primarily a legislative function must be left to the
Legislature ad interference should normally be avoided by
Courts for the obvious reason that the Court is only examining
the matter before it, whether of private interest or public
interest, whereas, the Legislature is expected to take into
account the financial requirements of other scto4s of public
welfare and, to balance and distribute its resources according
to the needs, as per wisdom of the Legislature consisting of
peoples’ representative who are accountable to the people not
only through elections but also through Courts.
To sum up, a land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act
to be performed by the executive and, therefore, no mandamus
can be issued by the Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whether suo moto or
otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise
directing acquisition of land under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. It would, however, be open to the Court
in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive
to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that
public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision,

even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in
accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a
reasonable time-frame. However, the power of the Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India must necessarily stop at
that. Thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is
capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds
for such challenge, it may also be open to the Court to quash
the decision and to require reconsideration. But no direction in
the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued
by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the
executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular
piece of land for a particular public purpose. The question no.3
is answered accordingly.
All the questions having been answered as above, the
matter may be placed before the appropriate single Judge
Bench for further consideration.
Dated: 26.04.2007 Sd/- Sushil Harkauli, J.
Sd/- S.K. Singh, J.
Sd/- Krishna Murari, J.

ENCLOSURE NO.7
LETTER DATED 12.07.2004
WRITTE BY THE REGISTRAR OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
FOR HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND

ENCLOSURE NO.8
LETTER DATED 18.11.2004
WRITTE BY THE REGISTRAR OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
REQUESTED THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TO PROVIDE THE LAND

O.N. Khandelwal, HJS D.O.
No.3269/JR(P)
Registrar General Dt. November
18, 2004
Dear Sir Yadav,
During the last years work in the High Court both in
Judicial and Administrative side has increased manifold as also
number of Ministerial Officers, officials and lawyers particularly
those having cars and other vehicles has increased to a grant
extent. To ensure smooth functioning of Court, proper office
management, safety and security of records,
extension/expansion of Court’s Campus apart to be urgent
need. Or the purpose, we need additional space/land.
Since the number of lawyers is increasing day by day and
all of them do not have their chambers to attend to their
professional needs during Court hours they sit in open space,
gallery and verandah. For the, we require proper place for
construction of chambers befitting to their status so that they
may conveniently attend to their professional needs during
Court hours.
On account of paucity of space in the High Court Campus
the offices are over crowded and the officers and officials work
literally in adverse conditions. Therefore, some more space to
avoid congestion in the existing Sections of Officers by

constructing new office complex (s) and also to provide eco-
friendly working conditions to the officers and officials of the
Court is required.
In recent past possession over the properly 59, Civil
Station, Kanpur Road, Allahabad has been handed over to the
High Court but the said property is not sufficient to serve out
even the existing needs of the Court. Therefore, in addition
thereto some more land is required. We are informed that
adjacent to the above property one more property is available.
I am, therefore, desired by Hon’ble Acting the Chief
Justice to request you to kindly provide immediately the details
of the property that can be made available by
acquisition/resumption to serve the existing and future needs of
the High Court, Staff and Bar.
Yours Sincerely,
Khandelwal)
Shri Mahavir Prasad Yadav, IAS
District Magistrate,
Allahabad.
Sd/- Illegible.
(O.N.

ENCLOSURE NO.9
VARIOUS LETTERS OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED
05.05.2005
SHOWING THE PROGRESS IN THE MATTER

5] 2005
dk;kZy; ftykf/kdkjh] bykgkcknA
la[;k&44@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&3@26¼81&82½ fnukad ebZ
1& Jh dSyk”k tk;loky
iq= Lo0 dsnkj ukFk tk;loky
,e0th0 dkyst jksM] iqfnZyiqj]
xksj[kiqjA
2& Jh lqjsUnz dqekj xxZ]
iq= Lo0 Jh/ku izdk”k xxZ
5] n;kuUn ekxZ] bykgkcknA
3& Mk0 ,0ds0 caly]
iq= ,l0Mh0 caly]
162 ckbZ dk ckx] yksFkj jksM]
bykgkcknA
dì;k vius vkosnu i= fnukad 13-08-2004 dk lanHkZ xzg.k
djsa] ftlds lkFk vkids }kjk utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku
{ks=Qy 4 ,dM+ 636 oxZxt dks QzhgksYM fd;s tkus gsrq :0 5]00]000@&
dh LoewY;kadu /kujkf”k fnukad 25-07-2003 dks tek djus fo’k;d pkyku
dh ewy izfr ,oa izi= la[;k&1 esa fnukad jfgr vkosnu i= rFkk fnukad 05-
04-2004 dks :Lre [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh] tgkWxhj Mh0 xkW/kh ,oa ukjheu
Mh0 xkW/kh vkfn }kjk fnukad 05-04-2004 dks fn;k x;k ukfer djus lEcU/kh

lgefr i= rFkk {kfriwfrZ cU/k i= layXu dj izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl
fo’k; esa mYys[kuh; gS fd “kklukns”k la[;k
645@vkB&4&05&175,uAMCY;wA@2003] fnukad 19-04-2005 ds vUrxZr
“kklukns”k la[;k 2873@9&vk&4&2002& 152,u@2000 Vh0lh0 fnfukad
10-12-2002 }kjk izofrZr dh xbZ utwy Hkwfe ds izcU/k ,oa fuLrkj.k fo’k;d
uhfr izHkkoh gks tkus ds QyLo:i dsoy ewy iV~Vk/kkjd] mlds
mRrjkf/kdkjh rFkk dzsrk AftUgksaus iathd`r fodz; i= ds vk/kkj ij utwy
Hkwfe dz; fd;k gksA Qzh gksYM djk ikus ds ik= gSaA mDr “kklukns”k fnukad
10-12-2002 ds vUrxZr ukfer O;fDr ds i{k esa Qzh&gksYM dh O;oLFkk lekIr
dj nh xbZ gS] tcfd vkids }kjk vius QzhgksYM vkosnu i= fnukad 13-08-
2004 ds lkFk layXu fd;k x;k lgefr i= fnukad 05-04-2004 dks
,MoksdsV uksVjh }kjk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA
vr,o vkidk mDr QzhgksYM vkosnu i= mifjlanfHkZr “kklukns”k
fnfukad 10-12-2002 }kjk izofrZr QzhgksYM uhfr ds vuq:i u gksus ds dkj.k
fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA
g0 vLi’V
¼ve`r vfHktkr½
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA

la[;k @utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&3@26¼81&82½ fnukad
mi;qZDrA
izfrfyfi& lfpo] vkokl ,oa “kgjh fu;kstu foHkkx] vuqHkkx&4]
m0iz0 “kklu ckiw Hkou] lfpoky;] y[kuÅ 226001 dks
lwpukFkZ izsf’krA
g0 vLi’V
¼ve`r vfHktkr½
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA

izs’kd]
ve`r vfHktkr]
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA
lsok esa]
uxj vk;qDr]
uxj fuxe]
bykgkcknA
la[;k% 41@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&3@26¼81&82½ fnukad 05-
05-2005
fo’k;% utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k 141 flfoy LVs”ku dks ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; ds mi;ksx esa iqux`ghr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA
egksn;]
mi;qZDr fo’k; ds lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd ek0 mPp
U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk i=kad&2040@jft0Aih0A fnukad 12-07-
2004 ds vUrxZr utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku {ks=Qy 4
,dM+ 636 oxZxt A1678-655 oxZeh0A dks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds
ek0 U;k;ewfrZx.k ds vkoklh; Hkouksa dk fuekZ.k djk;s tkus gsrq
bldk dCtk “kh?kz miyC/k djk;s tkus dk funsZ”k fn;k x;k gSA
mDr utwy Hkw[k.M ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds lkeus lh0,l0ih0 flag
ekxZ AU;k; ekxZA ij fLFkr gS ,oa bl Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk vkns”k
la[;k&96@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&3@26¼81&82½ fnukad 15-11-2002

ds vUrxZr fujLr gksdj mRrj izns”k “kklu ds i{k esa vafdr gks
pqdk gSA
vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd dì;k mDr Hkw[k.M ij fufeZr Hkouksa
dk foLr`r fooj.k Hkou la[;k Hkouksa dk i`Fkd&i`Fkd {ks=Qy ,oa
v/;kfl;ksa dh Hkouokj lwph rFkk muds irs vkfn dh lwpuk
vfoyEc miyC/k djk;sa] lkFk gh mDr Hkw[k.M dk fdruk {ks=Qy
vkoklh; :i esa rFkk fdruk {ks=Qy O;kolkf;d :i esa vFkok
blls fHkUu iz;kstu gsrq iz;ksx esa yk;k tk jgk gS ,oa ml ij fLFkr
o`{k vkfn dk izdkj ,oa la[;k ds lEcU/k eas lE;d~ ijh{k.kksijkUr
fnukad 25-05-2005 rd lqLi’V :i ls voxr djkus dk d’V djsaA
Hkonh;
¼ve`r vfHktkr½
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA
la[;k% 41 ¼1$1½@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@25¼81&82½ rn~fnukad
izfrfyfi& egkfucU/kd] ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn dks muds
i=kad la[;k 2040@jft0Aih0A fnukad 12-07-2004 ds
dze esa lwpukFkZ izsf’krA
¼ve`r vfHktkr½
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA

izs’kd]
ve`r vfHktkr]
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA
lsok esa]
Jh pUnzek izlkn]
fo”ks’k lfpo]
ek0 eq[;ea=h] m0iz0]
y[kuÅA
la[;k% 40@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½ fnukad 05-
05-2005
fo’k;% Jh dSyk”k tk;loky iq= Lo0 dsnkj ukFk tk;loky fuoklh
,e0th0 dkyst jksM] iqfnZyiqj] xksj[kiqj ds izkFkZuki= ij
dk;Zokgh ds lEcU/k esaA
egksn;]
mi;qZDr fo’k;d dì;k ek0 eq[;eU=h dk;kZy; ds i=kad
31343@vks0,l0Mh0AtsA lh0,e0&2004 fnukad 27-09-2004 rFkk
i=kad 32927@vks0,l0Mh0AtsA lh0,e0&2004 fnukad 09-102004
ij ikfjr vius vkns”k fnukad 12-10-2004 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsa] tks
Jh dSyk”k tk;loky ds izkFkZuk i= fnukad 10-09-2004 ds lEcU/k
esa d`r dk;Zokgh ls voxr djk;s tkus fo’k;d gSA Jh tk;loky ds

mDr izR;kosnu dk lE;d~ ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] rn~uqlkj oLrqfLFkfr
fuEuor~ gS%&
utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku {ks=Qy 4
,dM+ 636 oxZxt ds lekIr iV~Vs ds LFkku ij Jh MkslkHkk;
Qzkejkst xkW/kh }kjk u;k iV~Vk Lohd`r fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k
x;k FkkA izdj.k ds ijh{k.kksaijkUr Jh xkW/kh ds i{k esa u;k iV~Vk
Lohd`r fd;k tkuk lehphu u ikrs gq, vkns”k la[;k%
96@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½ fnukad 15-11-2002 ds
vUrxZr iz”uxr Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk fujLr dj mRrj izns”k ljdkj
ds i{k esa ntZ fd;s tkus dk vkns”k ikfjr gqvk Fkk ftlds vk/kkj
ij iz”uxr lEifRr utwy lEifRr iaftdk esa m0iz0 jkT; ds uke
vafdr Hkh gks pqdh gSA bl vkns”k ds fo:) Jh :Lre [kq”kjks
“kkiwjth xkW/kh ,oa vU; cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 rFkk vU; ls
lacaf/kr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&20379@2003 lEizfr ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa fopkjk/khu gSA bl lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh
mYys[kuh; gS fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius i=kad

2040@jft0Aih0A fnukad 12-07-2004 }kjk iz”uxr utwy Hkw[k.M
la[;k 141 ij ekuuh; U;k;k/kh”kksa dk vkoklh; Hkou fufeZr fd;s
tkus gsrq bl Hkw[k.M dk dCtk “kh?kz miyC/k djkus gsrq Rofjr
visf{kr dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk funsZ”k fn;k x;k gSA vr% iz”uxr
Hkw[k.M ds ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dh vko”;drk dks ns[krs gq, u rks
bl Hkw[k.M dk iV~Vk Lohd`r fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj u gh fdlh
ds i{k esa QzhgksYM dh dk;Zokgh gh dh tk ldrh gSA vLrq Jh
dSyk”k tk;loky ds mDr izkFkZuk i= ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh visf{kr
ugha gSA bl dze esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh dSyk”k tk;loky
}kjk blds iwoZ Hkh viuk izR;kosnu “kklu ds le{k izLrqr fd;k
x;k Fkk] ftlds lEcU/k esa dk;kZy; ds i=kad
748@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½ fnukad 28 ebZ] 2004
}kjk “kklu ds vkokl ,oa “kgjh fu;kstu foHkkx dks rF;ksa ls
voxr djk;k tk pqdk gSA vr,o mi;qZDr of.kZr fLFkfr dks
n`f’Vxr j[krs gq, Jh dSyk”k tk;loky vFkok fdlh vU; ds i{k esa

u rks QzhgksYM dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gS vkSj u gh iV~Vs dk
uohuhdj.k gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA
Hkonh;
¼ve`r vfHktkr½
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA

izs’kd]
ve`r vfHktkr]
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA
lsok esa]
lfpo]
vkokl ,oa “kgjh fu;kstu foHkkx]
vuqHkkx&4] m0iz0 “kklu]
y[kuÅA
la[;k% 43@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½ fnukad 05-
05-2005
fo’k;% utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k 141 flfoy LVs”ku] bykgkckn ds lEcU/k
esaA
egksn;]
mi;qZDr fo’k;d dì;k “kklu ds i=kad
966@vkB&4&04&15,u@04 fnukad 11 twu 2004 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsa]
ftlesa utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku ds iV~Vk fujLrhdj.k
vkns”k dh izfr rFkk vU; vfHkys[k ,oa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV
;kfpdk la[;k& 20379@2003 esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k
dh izfr miyC/k djkus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gSA bl fo’k; esa mYys[kuh; gS
fd utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k 141 flfoy LVs”ku dk iV~Vk vkns”k
la[;k&96@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½ fnukad 15-11-2002
}kjk fujLr gks pqdk gS rFkk iz”uxr lEifRr m0iz0 jkT; ds uke

vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr gSA iV~Vk fujLr fd;s tkus ds vkns”k ds fo:)
iV~Vsnkj :Lre [kq”kjks “kkiwjth xkW/kh rFkk vU; }kjk nk;j dh xbZ gSA
fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&20379@2003 lEizfr ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn
esa fopkjk/khu gSA tgkW rd Jh dSyk”k tk;loky fuoklh iqfnZyiqj]
xksj[kiqj ds izR;kosnu fnukad 07-06-2004 ij vk[;k miyC/k djkus dk
iz”u gS] bl fo’k; eas Jh dSyk”k tk;loky }kjk fnukad 10-12-2002 ds
iwoZ dksbZ QzhgksYM vkosnui= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% mids i{k
esa QzhgksYM fd;s tkus dk iz”u gh ugha mBrkA
mDr dze esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky;
bykgkckn }kjk i=kad&2040@jft0Aih0A fnukad 12-07-2004 ds
vUrxZr utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku {ks=Qy 4 ,dM+ 636
oxZxt A16718-655 oxZehVjA dks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds ek0
U;k;ewfrZx.k ds vkoklh; Hkouksa dk fuekZ.k djk;s tkus gsrq bldk dCtk
“kh?kz miyC/k djk;s tkus dk funsZ”k fn;k gS] ftlds dze esa mDr Hkw[k.M
dks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dks miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq vko”;d dk;Zokgh
dh tk jgh gSA vr% mDr Hkw[k.M ds iV~Vs dk uohuhdj.k fd;s tkus
vFkok QzhgksYM djus dk iz”u ugha mBrkA
layXud& ;FkksDr
Hkonh;
¼ve`r vfHktkr½
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA

la[;k% 43 ¼1$1½@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@25¼81&82½ fnukad
mijksDr
izfrfyfi& vk;qDr] bykgkckn e.My] bykgkckn dks muds i=kad
4825@ih0,0 fnukad 23-04-2004 ds dze esa lwpukFkZ
,oa vko”;d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf’krA

ENCLOSURE NO.10
LETTER OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 05.05.2005

izs’kd]
lsok esa]
ve`r vfHktkr]
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA
lfpo]
vkokl ,oa “kgjh fu;kstu foHkkx]
vuqHkkx&4] m0iz0 “kklu]
y[kuÅA
la[;k% 42@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½ fnukad 05-
05-2005
fo’k;% utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k 141 flfoy LVs”ku] bykgkckn ds lEcU/k
esaA
egksn;]
mi;qZDr fo’k;d dì;k “kklu ds i=kad
2367@vkB&4&2004& 15,u@04 fnukad 07 tuojh 2005] i=kad
,e0,e0&1@vkB&4&05&15,u@ 2004 fnukad 1 Qjojh 2005 ,oa
v)Z”kkldh; i= la[;k 264@vkB& 4&04&15,u@2004 fnukad 24
Qjojh 2005 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsa] tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]
bykgkckn }kjk utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku ds LFkku

ij utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&58] ,0ch0lh0Mh0 o bZ0 dks vkoafVr fd;s
tkus ds vuqjks/k ls lEcfU/kr gSA bl fo’k; esa mYys[kuh; gS fd Jh
vks0,u0 [k.Msoky] jftLVªkj tujy] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn
}kjk vius i=kad&2040@jft0Aih0A fnukad 12-07-2004 ds vUrxZr
ek0 U;k;k/kh”kx.k ds jktdh; vkoklksa ds fuekZ.k gsrq utwy Hkw[k.M
la[;k&141 flfoy LVs”ku dk dCtk vfoyEc miyC/k dk;s tkus
gsrq “kh?kz vko”;d dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk funsZ”k fn;k FkkA blds
vfrfjDr jftLVªkj tujy] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; us vius
v)Z”kkldh; i= la[;k3269@ts0vkj0Aih0A fnukad 18 uoEcj
2004 ds vUrxZr ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa dkfeZdksa] vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa
vf/koDrkvksa dh c

la[;k 58 vkoafVr fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gksA vr% bl
dk;kZy; ds i=kad 5180@utwy&fl0yk0&XX1&8@26¼81&82½
fnukad 30-12-2004 esa mfYyf[kr ;g rf; fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky;
}kjk utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k 141 flfoy LVs”ku ds LFkku ij ,d vU;
utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k 58 ,0ch0lh0Mh0 o bZ0 dks miyC/k djk;s tkus
dh vis{k dh xbZ gS] =qfViw.kZ ,oa fujk/kkj gSA oLrqr% ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k 141 flfoy LVs”ku dks ekuuh;
U;k;k/kh”kx.k ds jktdh; vkokl fufeZr djk;s tkus gsrq miyC/k
djk;s tkus dk funsZ”k fn;k x;k gS rFkk blds lkFk gh okguksa ds
ikfdZax gsrq vf/koDrkvksa] deZpkfj;ksa rFkk vf/kdkfj;ksa ds cSBus dh
O;oLFkk rFkk vfHkys[kksa dks lqjf{kr j[ks tkus gsrq ,d vU; Hkw[k.M
miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA lqyHk lanHkZ gsrq ,rn~}kjk
jftLVªkj tujy ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds i=kad 2040@jft0Aih0A
fnukad 12-07-2004 ,oa v)Z”kkldh; i=
la[;k&3269@ts0vkj0Aih0A fnukad 18-11-2004 dh Nk;kizfr layXu
dj izsf’kr dh tk jgh gSA

layXud& ;FkksDr
Hkonh;
¼ve`r vfHktkr½
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA

ENCLOSURE NO.11
LETTER OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFERING THE LAND FREE OF COST
IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.02.2010

izs’kd]
ve`r vfHktkr]
ftykf/kdkjh]
bykgkcknA
lsok esa]
jftLVªkj ¼izksVksdky½]
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]
bykgkcknA
la[;k% @utwy&Mh0,u0lh0&XX1&8@ek0m0U;k0 fnukad
fo’k;% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn ds ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZx.k ds
vkoklh; Hkou ds fuekZ.kkFkZ vfookfnr Hkwfe miyC/k djk;s tkus ds
lEcU/k esaA
egksn;]
dì;k mijksDr fo’k;d vius i= la[;k 2764@jft0¼ih0½ fnukad 23-
12-2009] i= la[;k 45@jft0 ¼ih0½ fnukad 08-01-2010 ,oa i= la[;k&
118@jft0¼ih0½ fnukad 21-01-2010 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djsa] ftlds }kjk
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds 5 fd0eh0 dh ifjf/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]
bykgkckn ds ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZx.k ds vkoklh; Hkou ds fuekZ.kkFkZ vfookfnr
Hkwfe miyC/k dk;s tkus dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA
bl lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds 5
fd0eh0 dh ifjf/k esa fuEu Hkwfe miyC/k djk;k tkuk izLrkfor gS%&
la[;k Hkw[k.M la[;k {ks=Qy Hkw[k.M dh vofLFkfr ,oa laf{kIr fooj.k
1 141 flfoy 4 ,dM+ ,oa ;g Hkw[k.M ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; Hkou
LVs”ku
636 oxZxt
ds Bhd lkeus iwjc fn”kk esa dkuiqj vkSj

2 484] 485] 486]
487] 488] 489]
490] 491] 492]
493] 494] 496
dqy 12 xkVk
xzke csyh
mijgkj ijxuk
o rglhy ljn
bykgkckn ¼cSad
jksM½
vFkok 16]718-
65 oxZehVj
1-689 gsDVs;j
16890
oxZehVj
gsfLVax jksM ds dkuZj ij ,fYxu jksM rd
fLFkr gSA ;g iV~Vk vof/k lekIr utwy
Hkwe gSA blds iV~Vs dh vof/k fnukad 07-
06-1975 dks lekIr gks pqdh gSA fjV
;kfpdk la[;k 29255@2008 esa ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad
08-02-2010 ds vUrxZr ;kph dk dksbZ
vf/kdkj Hkw[k.M esa u ekurs gq, fjV
;kfpdk fujLr dj nh x;h gSA bl vkns”k
fnukad 08-02-2010 ds fo:) fo”ks’k vuqKk
;kfpdk la[;k 17894@2010 vkj0ds0,l0
xka/kh cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 ,oa vU;
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA
;g Hkw[k.M bykgkckn fo”ofo|ky; ds
ikl cSad jksM ij fLFkr gSA ;g Hkwfe
jktdh; vkLFkku dh gSA fyf[kr [kkrsnkj
Jh dYywjke flag dk uke Js.kh&6¼d½ esa
ntZ Fkk] ftls ftykf/kdkjh ds vkns”k
fnukad 13-08-2003 ds }kjk fujLr fd;k
tk pqdk gSA Jh dYywjke us fl0fe0 fjV
;kfpdk la0 20805 o"kZ 2003 ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky fd;k gS] ftlesa izfr
“kiFki= fnukad 01-09-2003 dks nkf[ky
fd;k tk pqdk gSA mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa
dksbZ LFkxu vkns”k ugha fn;k x;k gS]
;kfpdk fopkjk/khu gSA Jh dYyw jke flag
us Hkw[k.M la[;k 496 ds 5952 oxZehVj ds

3 112] 113] 114]
118] 119] 120]
121] 122 o 123
xzke Hkkokiqj
eq”r[kkjtk
ijxuk o rglhy
lnj] bykgkcknA
9 ,dM+ 1 jkM
211 oxZxt
yxHkx 45]000
oxZehVj
fofu;ferhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fjV ;kfpdk
la[;k 37363 o"kZ 2004 dYyw jke flag
cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 nkf[ky fd;k X;k
Fkk] tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns”k
fnukad 16-04-2009 ds }kjk fuLrkfjr dh
tk pqdh gSA
;g Hkwfe [kq”k:ckx ds if”pe rjQ jsyos
vksoj fczt ls yxh gqbZ [kqys eSnku ds :i
esa fLFkr gSA ;g jktdh; vkLFkku dh Hkwfe
gSA esllZ U;wt isij izk0fy0 1 ywdjxat
bykgkckn dk iV~Vk ftykf/kdkjh ds
vkns”k fnukad 04-09-2003 ds vUrxZr
fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk] fdUrq iqu%
ftykf/kdkjh ds vkns”k fnukad 24-10-2007
ds }kjk iV~Vk lkSE;k lgdkjh vkokl
lfefr fy0 ds i{k esa fjLVksj djrs gq,
,u0vks0lh0 fuxZr dh x;h] ftykf/kdkjh
ds mDr vkns”k ij vk;qDr egksn; }kjk
tkWp djds vk[;k izsf’kr djus dk funsZ”k
fn;k x;k] ftlds vuqikyu esa
v0”kk0i0la0 520 fnukad 13-08-2009 ds
}kjk vk[;k vk;qDr egksn; ,oa “kklu ds
jktLo foHkkx dks izsf’kr dh x;h gS] tks
vHkh fopkjk/khu gSA

mijksDr rhuksa Hkw[k.Mksa esa ls fdlh ,d dk p;u dj ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; ds ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ;ksa ds vkoklh; Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k gsrq “kklu
Lrj ls fu%”kqYd djk;k tk ldrk gSA
Hkonh;
¼lqHkk’k pUnz mRre½
vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼utwy½
bykgkcknA

ENCLOSURE NO.12
LETTER OF NAGAR AYUKT, ALLAHABAD
GIVING STATUS OF PLOT NO.58 CIVIL STATION, ALLAHABAD